Re: [PATCH 17/24] mpt fusion: [2.6.30-rc6] Rescan SAS topology added

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 16:37 +0530, Kashyap, Desai wrote:
> @@ -3176,6 +3220,116 @@ mptsas_send_link_status_event(struct fw_event_work *fw_event)
>  	mptsas_free_fw_event(ioc, fw_event);
>  }
>  
> +static void
> +mptsas_not_responding_devices(MPT_ADAPTER *ioc)
> +{
> +	struct mptsas_portinfo buffer, *port_info;
> +	struct sas_device_info	*sas_info;
> +	struct mptsas_devinfo sas_device;
> +	u32	handle;
> +	VirtTarget *vtarget = NULL;
> +	struct mptsas_phyinfo *phy_info;
> +	u8 found_expander;
> +	int retval, retry_count;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	mpt_findImVolumes(ioc);
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&ioc->taskmgmt_lock, flags);
> +	if (ioc->ioc_reset_in_progress) {
> +		dfailprintk(ioc, printk(MYIOC_s_DEBUG_FMT
> +		   "%s: exiting due to a parallel reset \n", ioc->name,
> +		    __func__));
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ioc->taskmgmt_lock, flags);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ioc->taskmgmt_lock, flags);
> +
> +	/* devices, logical volumes */
> + redo_device_scan:
> +	list_for_each_entry(sas_info, &ioc->sas_device_info_list, list) {

This list is supposed to be protected by the sas_device_info_mutex,
isn't it ... where is that taken to protect the traversal?

> +		sas_device.handle = 0;
> +		retry_count = 0;
> +retry_page:
> +		retval = mptsas_sas_device_pg0(ioc, &sas_device,
> +				(MPI_SAS_DEVICE_PGAD_FORM_BUS_TARGET_ID
> +				<< MPI_SAS_DEVICE_PGAD_FORM_SHIFT),
> +				(sas_info->fw.channel << 8) +
> +				sas_info->fw.id);
> +
> +		if (sas_device.handle)
> +			continue;
> +		if (retval == -EBUSY) {
> +			spin_lock_irqsave(&ioc->taskmgmt_lock, flags);
> +			if (ioc->ioc_reset_in_progress) {
> +				dfailprintk(ioc,
> +				    printk(MYIOC_s_DEBUG_FMT
> +				    "%s: exiting due to reset\n",
> +				    ioc->name, __func__));
> +				spin_unlock_irqrestore
> +				    (&ioc->taskmgmt_lock, flags);
> +				return;
> +			}
> +			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ioc->taskmgmt_lock,
> +			flags);
> +		}
> +
> +		if (retval && (retval != -ENODEV)) {
> +			if (retry_count < 10) {
> +				retry_count++;
> +				goto retry_page;
> +			} else {
> +				devtprintk(ioc, printk(MYIOC_s_DEBUG_FMT
> +				"%s: Config page retry exceeded retry "
> +				"count deleting device 0x%llx\n",
> +				ioc->name, __func__,
> +				sas_info->sas_address));
> +			}
> +		}
> +
> +		/* delete device */
> +		vtarget = mptsas_find_vtarget(ioc,
> +				sas_info->fw.channel, sas_info->fw.id);
> +		if (vtarget)
> +			vtarget->deleted = 1;
> +		phy_info = mptsas_find_phyinfo_by_sas_address(ioc,
> +		    sas_info->sas_address);
> +		if (phy_info) {
> +			mptsas_del_end_device(ioc, phy_info);
> +			goto redo_device_scan;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	/* expanders */
> + redo_expander_scan:
> +	list_for_each_entry(port_info, &ioc->sas_topology, list) {

And this one is supposed to be protected by the sas_topology_mutex,
where is that taken?

James