From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Anderson Subject: Re: BUG: CD driver sends command during host removal Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:13:18 -0700 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20041011231317.GA11365@us.ibm.com> References: <1097525576.2031.173.camel@mulgrave> <20041011204050.GD8296@us.ibm.com> <1097529322.2031.199.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.101]:8373 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269341AbUJKXNX (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:13:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1097529322.2031.199.camel@mulgrave> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Alan Stern , SCSI development list James Bottomley [James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com] wrote: > On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 15:40, Mike Anderson wrote: > > > This is the remove implies cancel issue that was discussed earlier. I > > > thought the proposal was to have a remove that wouldn't automatically > > > cancel all the commands? ... although I don't think I've seen any code > > > for that case yet. > > > > > > > Clarification. James, are you indicating that there needs to be a new > > scsi mid api that performs similar function to scsi_remove_host expect > > does not cancel commands? > > Sorry, by "a remove that .." I was meaning "another remove method that > ..." > Well based on Mike C's mail it looks like when I moved scsi_forget_host up in scsi_remove_host that I broke scsi_host_cancel as it stands now scsi_remove_host is not really doing any cancels. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=109743460011434&w=2 > > If is unclear to me if a LLDD provides a slave_destroy which is called > > from scsi_remove_device during the scsi_forget_host function that we > > would hit a case where the LLDD has good IO to complete still > > outstanding when we complete scsi_forget_host and call scsi_host_cancel. > > That depends what the LLD does with the slave destroy really. The API > doesn't say the LLD has to chase all I/Os down when slave destroy is > called, so we can't assume it has. > ok. -andmike -- Michael Anderson andmike@us.ibm.com