public inbox for linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Patrick Mansfield <patmans@us.ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>,
	SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 07/08] scsi: remove bogus	{get|put}_device() calls
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:02:01 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050329170201.GA6787@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42413336.2010004@gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 06:13:26PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>  Hi,
> 
> James Bottomley wrote:
> >On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 11:14 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> >>	So, basically, SCSI high-level object (scsi_disk) and
> >>	mid-level object (scsi_device) are reference counted by users,
> >>	not the requests they submit.  Reference count cannot go zero
> >>	with active users and users cannot access the object once the
> >>	reference count reaches zero.
> >
> >
> >Actually, no.  Unfortunately we still have some fire and forget APIs, so
> >the contention that we always have an open refcounted descriptor isn't
> >always true.

What API's, and what usage?

>  Yeap, you're right.  So, what we have is

>  * All high-level users have open access to the scsi high-level
>    object on issueing requests, but may close it before its requests
>    complete.

>  * All mid-layer users do get_device() before submitting requests,
>    but may put_device() before its requests complete.

Any LLDD's issuing requests should be doing a get/put around the request.

Any upper level drivers calling scsi_device_put() before a request
completes is likely a bug. sg has code in place to handle the
post-release/close completion of IO (IMO, a bad design).

Are any upper level drivers calling scsi_device_put() while they have
outstanding IO?

The scan code never calls upper level drivers probe functions via
device_add unless we are going to keep the scsi_device (well, there are
error paths in scsi_sysfs_add_sdev that look bad - we don't check the
result of scsi_sysfs_add_sdev). But for completeness, we could add
get/puts to the scan code.

As you pointed out, the current get_device() will never return NULL when
called via:

	get_device(&sdev->sdev_gendev)

The current code only narrows the window where problems might occur, I
don't see how it can completely avoid races with removal.

And the patch removes code from the mainline scsi IO paths.

-- Patrick Mansfield

  reply	other threads:[~2005-03-29 17:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-03-23  2:14 [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 00/08] scsi: small fixes & cleanups Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 01/08] scsi: remove unused bounce-buffer release path Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  4:07   ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23  6:08     ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-23 15:27       ` Jens Axboe
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 02/08] scsi: don't use blk_insert_request() for requeueing Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 03/08] scsi: remove unused scsi_cmnd->internal_timeout field Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 04/08] scsi: remove meaningless volatile qualifiers from structure definitions Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  4:15   ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23  4:22     ` Jeff Garzik
2005-03-23  5:28       ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-23 15:16       ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 05/08] scsi: remove a timer race from scsi_queue_insert() and cleanup timer Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 06/08] scsi: remove meaningless scsi_cmnd->serial_number_at_timeout field Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 07/08] scsi: remove bogus {get|put}_device() calls Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  4:15   ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23  9:13     ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-29 17:02       ` Patrick Mansfield [this message]
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 08/08] scsi: fix hot unplug sequence Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  4:08   ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23  4:50     ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  7:19       ` Jens Axboe
2005-03-23 15:20         ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23 15:25           ` Jens Axboe
2005-03-25  0:45             ` James Bottomley
2005-03-25  3:15               ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-25  5:02                 ` James Bottomley
2005-03-25  5:38                   ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-25 19:19                     ` James Bottomley
2005-03-25 21:43                       ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-25 22:49                         ` James Bottomley
2005-03-26  7:27                       ` Kai Makisara
2005-03-26 14:48                         ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23 15:12       ` James Bottomley

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20050329170201.GA6787@us.ibm.com \
    --to=patmans@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com \
    --cc=axboe@suse.de \
    --cc=htejun@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox