From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Christie Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] qla4xxx: added srb referance counter Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:57:17 -0600 Message-ID: <4B748B4D.5030809@cs.wisc.edu> References: <20100130062856.GG10274@linux-qf4p> <4B671BFC.90107@cs.wisc.edu> <20100211110852.GB8237@linux-qf4p> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sabe.cs.wisc.edu ([128.105.6.20]:34675 "EHLO sabe.cs.wisc.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757286Ab0BKW5f (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:57:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100211110852.GB8237@linux-qf4p> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Ravi Anand Cc: James Bottomley , Linux-SCSI Mailing List , Karen Higgins , Vikas Chaudhary On 02/11/2010 05:08 AM, Ravi Anand wrote: > On Mon, 01 Feb 2010, Mike Christie wrote: >> >> On 01/30/2010 12:28 AM, Ravi Anand wrote: >>> >>> - msleep(2000); >>> - } while (max_wait_time--); >>> + if (got_ref&& (atomic_read(&rp->ref_count) == 1)) { >>> + done++; >>> + break; >>> + } >>> + >>> + msleep(ABORT_POLLING_PERIOD); >> >> >> Did you want to use krefs for the refcounting? > > We will add it to our to do list and submit a patch later on. > For right now we will like to stick to it as kref will require > additional testing. > >> And why is this so funky (got_ref arg and refcount peak) compared to the >> qla2xxx one? > > I don't think qla2xxx is doing any reference counting in eh_abort() path. > Basically its trying to differentiate for case where it takes an additional > reference when the cmd is with the F/W. In that case if its the last guy, > then it can go ahead and complete the command. > got_ref is always 0 isn't it (at least in the patch it is)? It seems like you can just get rid of all that and just copy qla2xxx's code.