From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Ledford Subject: Re: [PATCH] sym53c8xx PPR negotiation fix Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:08:05 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1067645285.3112.538.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> References: <1067447221.3112.336.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> <1067447490.1829.30.camel@mulgrave> <20031029175045.GC25237@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <1067450547.3112.363.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> <20031029183159.GE25237@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <1067453148.3112.369.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> <4159000000.1067644546@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> <1067644902.1782.20.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:54535 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261871AbTKAAJb (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:09:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1067644902.1782.20.camel@mulgrave> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: "Justin T. Gibbs" , Matthew Wilcox , Marcelo Tosatti , linux-scsi mailing list On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 18:55, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 17:55, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > > BTW, slave_destroy() doesn't seem to be called after a probe > > for a target fails due to a selection timeout. Is this the > > expected behavior? I only keep persistent allocations after > > slave_configure() is called, so this doesn't affect my drivers, > > but the behavior isn't what I expected. This is 2.6.0-test9. > > Yes. > > slave_configure is only called if the mid-layer decides there's > something worth attaching to there (i.e. if the initial inquiry > succeeds); otherwise it just calls slave_destroy to signal loss of > interest in the target. That's exactly what Justin was saying *isn't* happening (aka, no target is there, we *don't* call slave_destroy is what Justin said). -- Doug Ledford 919-754-3700 x44233 Red Hat, Inc. 1801 Varsity Dr. Raleigh, NC 27606