From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
James Bottomley <jbottomley@parallels.com>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Chanho Min <chanho.min@lge.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 10/13] Make scsi_remove_host() wait for device removal
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 08:41:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50C19DC0.8040000@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121203164257.GE19802@htj.dyndns.org>
On 12/03/12 17:42, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 05:38:52PM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> It is indeed possible to invoke complete() only if the device list
>> became empty with the host state equal to SHOST_CANCEL,
>> SHOST_CANCEL_RECOVERY, SHOST_DEL or SHOST_DEL_RECOVERY and in
>
> We can test this with !scsi_host_scan_allowed(), right?
>
>> scsi_remove_host() to wait for that completion only if the device
>> list was not empty before the host state was changed into one of the
>> four mentioned states. Do you really prefer this approach over the
>> approach in the patch at the start of this thread ?
>
> Maybe I'm missing something but if possible completion tends to be
> much simpler than using waitqueue directly. I *think* that's the case
> here. Am I missing something?
Hello Tejun,
You are right that it should be possible to use a completion in this
context instead of a wait queue. However, I'm not enthusiast about using
a completion for this patch because it would mean introducing several
additional if-statements. Such if-statements would make this patch even
harder to test then it already is now.
Note: all your other review comments should have been addressed in v7 of
this patch series.
Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-07 7:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-28 12:39 [PATCH 0/13 v6] More device removal fixes Bart Van Assche
2012-11-28 12:42 ` [PATCH v6 01/13] block: Rename queue dead flag Bart Van Assche
2012-11-28 12:43 ` [PATCH v6 02/13] block: Let blk_drain_queue() caller obtain the queue lock Bart Van Assche
2012-11-28 12:44 ` [PATCH v6 03/13] block: Avoid that request_fn is invoked on a dead queue Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:23 ` Tejun Heo
2012-12-02 13:35 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-11-28 12:45 ` [PATCH v6 04/13] block: Avoid scheduling delayed work " Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:26 ` Tejun Heo
2012-12-02 13:41 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:59 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-28 12:46 ` [PATCH v6 05/13] block: Make blk_cleanup_queue() wait until request_fn finished Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:28 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-28 12:47 ` [PATCH v6 06/13] bsg: Remove unused function bsg_goose_queue() Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:29 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-28 12:48 ` [PATCH v6 07/13] Fix race between starved list processing and device removal Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:32 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-28 12:48 ` [PATCH v6 08/13] Remove get_device() / put_device() pair from scsi_request_fn() Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:34 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-28 12:50 ` [PATCH v6 09/13] Avoid saving/restoring interrupt state inside scsi_remove_host() Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:35 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-28 12:51 ` [PATCH v6 10/13] Make scsi_remove_host() wait for device removal Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:45 ` Tejun Heo
2012-12-02 13:48 ` Tejun Heo
2012-12-03 8:23 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-12-03 16:15 ` Tejun Heo
2012-12-03 16:38 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-12-03 16:42 ` Tejun Heo
2012-12-07 7:41 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2012-11-28 12:52 ` [PATCH v6 11/13] Make scsi_remove_host() wait until error handling finished Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:51 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-28 12:53 ` [PATCH v6 12/13] Avoid that scsi_device_set_state() triggers a race Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:53 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-28 12:53 ` [PATCH v6 13/13] Do not queue new I/O after scsi_remove_host() started Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:58 ` Tejun Heo
2012-12-02 14:02 ` [PATCH 0/13 v6] More device removal fixes Tejun Heo
2012-12-06 13:33 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50C19DC0.8040000@acm.org \
--to=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=chanho.min@lge.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=jbottomley@parallels.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.