From: Douglas Gilbert <dougg@torque.net>
To: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@btc.adaptec.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, dledford@redhat.com
Subject: Re: slave_destroy called in scsi_scan.c:scsi_probe_and_add_lun()
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:03:56 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3DFE69EC.1020804@torque.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 170040000.1040080786@aslan.btc.adaptec.com
Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
> In debugging a different bug in the new 2.5.X port of the aic7xxx driver,
> I came across this behavior in scsi_probe_and_add_lun()
>
> /*
> * Since we reuse the same sdevscan over and over with different
> * target and lun values, we have to destroy and then recreate
> * any possible low level attachments since they very will might
> * also store the id and lun numbers in some form and need updating
> * with each scan.
> */
> if (sdevscan->host->hostt->slave_destroy)
> sdevscan->host->hostt->slave_destroy(sdevscan);
> if (sdevscan->host->hostt->slave_alloc)
> sdevscan->host->hostt->slave_alloc(sdevscan);
>
> So, you cannot rely on slave_destroy as an indication of a device really
> going away in the physical sense. In SPI, for example, the driver can only
> tell that the device is gone if a command is issued to it. I had hoped that
> I could detect hot-pull/scsi-remove-single-device operations via this
> callback.
> Granted, for some drivers, recreating and destroying state associated with a
> particular device might be pretty cheap, but certainly not in all cases.
> The
> aic7xxx and aic79xx drivers maintain domain validation and other negotiation
> state in these structures. You certainly don't want to go through another
> full
> Domain Validation sequence the next time a device is allocated via
> slave_alloc() if the device isn't really "new".
>
> Any chance in changing this behavior?
Justin,
Yes, that behaviour does seem inconsistent with the
description of slave_alloc() and slave_destroy().
This post from 29th November shows a trace from a
device scan being done on the scsi_debug driver:
marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=103855771307230&w=2
I believe Pat Mansfield has done most of the recent
work in th device scan area and he is currently on
holiday.
Doug Gilbert
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-12-17 0:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-12-16 23:19 slave_destroy called in scsi_scan.c:scsi_probe_and_add_lun() Justin T. Gibbs
2002-12-17 0:03 ` Douglas Gilbert [this message]
2002-12-17 5:41 ` Doug Ledford
2002-12-17 20:25 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2002-12-17 22:24 ` Doug Ledford
2002-12-17 22:33 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-17 22:54 ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-18 1:00 ` Doug Ledford
2002-12-18 1:03 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-12-18 1:22 ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-18 3:22 ` Luben Tuikov
2002-12-18 2:07 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2002-12-18 3:35 ` Doug Ledford
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=3DFE69EC.1020804@torque.net \
--to=dougg@torque.net \
--cc=dledford@redhat.com \
--cc=gibbs@btc.adaptec.com \
--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