From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: Steffen Maier <maier@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Martin Peschke <mpeschke@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] zfcp: remove access control tables interface (port leftovers)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 14:33:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5469F92E.90806@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5469F857.10402@suse.de>
On 11/17/2014 02:29 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 11/13/2014 02:59 PM, Steffen Maier wrote:
>> From: Martin Peschke <mpeschke@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>> This patch removes some leftovers for commit
>> 663e0890e31cb85f0cca5ac1faaee0d2d52880b5
>> "[SCSI] zfcp: remove access control tables interface".
>>
>> The "access denied" case for ports is gone, as well.
>> The corresponding flag was cleared, but never set.
>> So clean it up.
>>
>> Sysfs flag is kept, though, for backward-compatibility.
>> Now it returns always 0.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Martin Peschke <mpeschke@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Steffen Maier <maier@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_erp.c | 7 -------
>> drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_fsf.c | 3 +--
>> drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_sysfs.c | 4 +---
>> 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_erp.c b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_erp.c
>> index c82fe65..2c5d456 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_erp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_erp.c
>> @@ -821,11 +821,6 @@ static int zfcp_erp_port_forced_strategy_close(struct zfcp_erp_action *act)
>> return ZFCP_ERP_CONTINUES;
>> }
>>
>> -static void zfcp_erp_port_strategy_clearstati(struct zfcp_port *port)
>> -{
>> - atomic_clear_mask(ZFCP_STATUS_COMMON_ACCESS_DENIED, &port->status);
>> -}
>> -
>> static int zfcp_erp_port_forced_strategy(struct zfcp_erp_action *erp_action)
>> {
>> struct zfcp_port *port = erp_action->port;
>> @@ -833,7 +828,6 @@ static int zfcp_erp_port_forced_strategy(struct zfcp_erp_action *erp_action)
>>
>> switch (erp_action->step) {
>> case ZFCP_ERP_STEP_UNINITIALIZED:
>> - zfcp_erp_port_strategy_clearstati(port);
>> if ((status & ZFCP_STATUS_PORT_PHYS_OPEN) &&
>> (status & ZFCP_STATUS_COMMON_OPEN))
>> return zfcp_erp_port_forced_strategy_close(erp_action);
>> @@ -933,7 +927,6 @@ static int zfcp_erp_port_strategy(struct zfcp_erp_action *erp_action)
>>
>> switch (erp_action->step) {
>> case ZFCP_ERP_STEP_UNINITIALIZED:
>> - zfcp_erp_port_strategy_clearstati(port);
>> if (p_status & ZFCP_STATUS_COMMON_OPEN)
>> return zfcp_erp_port_strategy_close(erp_action);
>> break;
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_fsf.c b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_fsf.c
>> index 0fe8d5d..21ec5e2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_fsf.c
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_fsf.c
>> @@ -1396,8 +1396,7 @@ static void zfcp_fsf_open_port_handler(struct zfcp_fsf_req *req)
>> port->handle = header->port_handle;
>> atomic_set_mask(ZFCP_STATUS_COMMON_OPEN |
>> ZFCP_STATUS_PORT_PHYS_OPEN, &port->status);
>> - atomic_clear_mask(ZFCP_STATUS_COMMON_ACCESS_DENIED |
>> - ZFCP_STATUS_COMMON_ACCESS_BOXED,
>> + atomic_clear_mask(ZFCP_STATUS_COMMON_ACCESS_BOXED,
>> &port->status);
>> /* check whether D_ID has changed during open */
>> /*
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_sysfs.c b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_sysfs.c
>> index 672b572..6b66412 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_sysfs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_sysfs.c
>> @@ -73,9 +73,7 @@ ZFCP_DEFINE_ATTR(zfcp_port, port, status, "0x%08x\n",
>> ZFCP_DEFINE_ATTR(zfcp_port, port, in_recovery, "%d\n",
>> (atomic_read(&port->status) &
>> ZFCP_STATUS_COMMON_ERP_INUSE) != 0);
>> -ZFCP_DEFINE_ATTR(zfcp_port, port, access_denied, "%d\n",
>> - (atomic_read(&port->status) &
>> - ZFCP_STATUS_COMMON_ACCESS_DENIED) != 0);
>> +ZFCP_DEFINE_ATTR_CONST(port, access_denied, "%d\n", 0);
>>
>> ZFCP_DEFINE_ATTR(zfcp_unit, unit, status, "0x%08x\n",
>> zfcp_unit_sdev_status(unit));
>>
> Is the ZFCP_STATUS_COMMON_ACCESS_DENIED bit still in use somewhere?
> If not, shouldn't it be removed altogether?
>
Ah. Reading the entire patch series helps.
Ignore this objection.
Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-17 13:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-13 13:59 [PATCH 0/3] zfcp features for 3.19 Steffen Maier
2014-11-13 13:59 ` [PATCH 1/3] zfcp: remove access control tables interface (port leftovers) Steffen Maier
2014-11-17 13:29 ` Hannes Reinecke
2014-11-17 13:33 ` Hannes Reinecke [this message]
2014-11-13 13:59 ` [PATCH 2/3] zfcp: bring back unit sysfs attributes for automatic LUN scan Steffen Maier
2014-11-17 13:34 ` Hannes Reinecke
2014-11-13 13:59 ` [PATCH 3/3] zfcp: auto port scan resiliency Steffen Maier
2014-11-17 13:37 ` Hannes Reinecke
2014-11-20 15:52 ` [PATCH 0/3] zfcp features for 3.19 Christoph Hellwig
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=5469F92E.90806@suse.de \
--to=hare@suse.de \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maier@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=mpeschke@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox