From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/5] SCSI EH cleanup Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 21:21:49 +0000 Message-ID: <1487798485.10204.1.camel@sandisk.com> References: <1487779650-1338-1-git-send-email-hare@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from esa1.hgst.iphmx.com ([68.232.141.245]:21105 "EHLO esa1.hgst.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933829AbdBVV0c (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:26:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1487779650-1338-1-git-send-email-hare@suse.de> Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "hare@suse.de" , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" Cc: "hch@lst.de" , "james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "jth@kernel.org" On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 17:07 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > this is a resend of a small patchset for cleaning up SCSI EH. > Primary goal is to make asynchronous aborts mandatory; there hasn't > been a single report so far where asynchronous abort won't work, so > the 'no_async_abort' flag has never been used and will be removed > with this patchset. > Additionally there's a cleanup for handle failed EH commands, and > to detect retries of failed commands. An additional comment: I don't think it is safe to execute a host reset while any asynchronous aborts are ongoing. I think the SCSI EH will get really confused if after a host reset has been performed a response is received from an asynchronous abort that was issued before the host reset started. Although a SCSI target must not send a LU RESET response before all previously submitted SCSI commands and TMFs have finished, what prevents in e.g. a multipath topology that an abort response and a LU RESET response are received out of order? Thanks, Bart.=