From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chandra Seetharaman Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] scsi_dh: Update RDAC device handler Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 11:40:23 -0700 Message-ID: <1210963223.21974.338.camel@chandra-ubuntu> References: <20080514144334.09AA610B5DF@craiglockhart-ipmi.suse.de> <1210819830.21974.268.camel@chandra-ubuntu> <482BFC21.8070600@suse.de> Reply-To: sekharan@us.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.141]:59420 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753688AbYEPSig (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 May 2008 14:38:36 -0400 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m4GIcafi018274 for ; Fri, 16 May 2008 14:38:36 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m4GIcaia077592 for ; Fri, 16 May 2008 14:38:36 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m4GIcZVS016027 for ; Fri, 16 May 2008 14:38:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <482BFC21.8070600@suse.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Hannes Reinecke Cc: James Bottomley , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 11:02 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > >> @@ -478,24 +491,9 @@ static int rdac_activate(struct scsi_device *sdev) > >> struct rdac_dh_data *h = get_rdac_data(sdev); > >> int err = SCSI_DH_OK; > >> > >> - if (h->lun == UNINITIALIZED_LUN) { > >> - err = get_lun(sdev); > >> - if (err != SCSI_DH_OK) > >> - goto done; > >> - } > >> - > >> err = check_ownership(sdev); > >> - switch (err) { > >> - case RDAC_UNOWNED: > >> - break; > >> - case RDAC_OWNED: > >> - err = SCSI_DH_OK; > >> - goto done; > >> - case RDAC_FAILED: > >> - default: > >> - err = SCSI_DH_IO; > > > > What does this change yield ? (under check_ownership) > > > We're now setting the lun state explicitly, so there's > no need to return different error codes. That is my question. what did we gain by the addition of lun_state ?