From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: Questions about scsi_target_reap and starget/sdev lifecyle Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:10:56 +0100 Message-ID: <20050621201056.GA29658@infradead.org> References: <20050621171209.GB29396@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:10153 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262297AbVFUULH (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:11:07 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern Cc: Mike Anderson , James Bottomley , SCSI development list On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 04:04:06PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > This objection runs up against an issue we discussed some time ago. > Should the intended meaning of scsi_remove_host be simply that the kernel > needs to stop using the HBA reasonably soon? In that case you are right. > Or should the intended meaning be that the HBA is actually gone > (hot-unplugged) and all further attempts to use it will fail? In that > case it doesn't matter. The best ways to resolve this issue may be to > have a separate scsi_host_gone routine or to add an extra argument to > scsi_remove_host. It must mean both because we don't know whether a hot unplug happened or not. The ->remove callbacks don't tell us.