From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Smart Subject: Re: [Comments Needed] scan vs remove_target deadlock Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 06:19:22 -0400 Message-ID: <443F772A.3080302@emulex.com> References: <1144693508.3820.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <443B2A79.4020600@cs.wisc.edu> <443E6ADC.8080206@emulex.com> <443F23D7.9090000@cs.wisc.edu> Reply-To: James.Smart@Emulex.Com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from emulex.emulex.com ([138.239.112.1]:29605 "EHLO emulex.emulex.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965134AbWDNKTg (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2006 06:19:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <443F23D7.9090000@cs.wisc.edu> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Christie Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org > Actually, maybe, I should not have brought this up as it could just be > more of a workaround of the core problem. For FC in fc_user_scan() do > you need some sort of lock around the rport loop? Yes, I had noticed this as well. However, I don't think this is influencing the deadlock. -- james s