From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Reinecke Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: improved eh timeout handler Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:36:01 +0100 Message-ID: <5277A2C1.6020407@suse.de> References: <1383224573-113346-1-git-send-email-hare@suse.de> <1383224573-113346-3-git-send-email-hare@suse.de> <20131031154905.GA10451@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49196 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752018Ab3KDNgH (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 08:36:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20131031154905.GA10451@infradead.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: James Bottomley , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Ren Mingxin , Joern Engel , James Smart On 10/31/2013 04:49 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Looks reasonable to me, but a few minor nitpicks: >=20 >> + spin_lock_irqsave(sdev->host->host_lock, flags); >> + if (scsi_host_eh_past_deadline(sdev->host)) { >=20 > I don't have the implementation of scsi_host_eh_past_deadline in my > local tree, but do we really need the host lock for it? >=20 Yes. The eh_deadline variable might be set from an interrupt context or from userland, so we need to protect access to it. >> +int >> +scsi_abort_command(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd) >=20 > Seems like this should be static and not exported in the current vers= ion > of the code? >=20 Yep. Will be doing so. Cheers, Hannes --=20 Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imend=F6rffer, HRB 16746 (AG N=FCrnberg) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html