public inbox for linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
	SCSI development list <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Robert Elliot <elliot@hp.com>
Subject: Re: Debugging scsi abort handling ?
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:39:45 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54005871.4040300@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54005642.8050805@suse.de>

Hi,

On 08/29/2014 12:30 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 08/29/2014 12:14 PM, Finn Thain wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/29/2014 06:39 AM, Finn Thain wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What might happen, though, that the command is already dead and gone
>>>>> by the time you're calling ->scsi_done() (if you call it after
>>>>> eh_abort). So there might not _be_ a command upon which you can call
>>>>> ->scsi_done() to start with.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hence any LLDD need to clear up any internal references after a call
>>>>> to eh_XXX to ensure it doesn't call ->scsi_done() an in invalid
>>>>> command.
>>>>>
>>>>> So even if the LLDD returns 'FAILED' upon a call to eh_XXX it
>>>>> _still_ needs to clear up the internal reference.
>>>>
>>>> This is a question that has been bothering me too. If the host's
>>>> eh_abort_cmd() method returns FAILED, it seems the mid-layer is liable
>>>> to re-issue the same command to the LLD (?)
>>>>
>>> No.
>>> FAILED for any eh_abort_cmd() means that the TMF hasn't been sent.
>>
>> Makes sense, though it appears to contradict this advice about returning
>> SUCCESS in some situations:
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=140923498632496&w=2
>>
> Well, if the LLDD detects an invalid command (ie if it cannot find any internal command matching the midlayer command) that's an automatic success, obviously.
> 
> So we should rephrase things to:
> 
> - The eh_XXX callback shall return 'SUCCESS' if the respective
>   TMF (or equvalent) could be initiated or if the matching command
>   reference has already been completed by the LLDD. Otherwise
>   the eh_XXX callback shall return 'FAILED'.

Your talking about "could be initiated", so that means that at this
point the abort does not yet have to be completed, do I get that
right? What should the LLDD then do when the abort finishes,
call eh_scsi_done on the cmnd ?

What about the abort never finishing (timeout), does the mid layer
track this, or should the LLDD do that?

Regards,

Hans

  reply	other threads:[~2014-08-29 10:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-08-23 14:52 Debugging scsi abort handling ? Hans de Goede
2014-08-23 15:42 ` Douglas Gilbert
2014-08-24  8:39   ` Hans de Goede
2014-08-23 21:05 ` James Bottomley
2014-08-24  8:46   ` Hans de Goede
2014-08-24 21:12     ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-08-25  7:20 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-08-25  8:47   ` Hans de Goede
2014-08-25 10:28     ` Bart Van Assche
2014-08-25 11:15       ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-08-25 11:26         ` Hans de Goede
2014-08-25 11:39           ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-08-25 15:41             ` James Bottomley
2014-08-26  8:13               ` Hans de Goede
2014-08-26 18:34                 ` James Bottomley
2014-08-26 19:19                   ` Hans de Goede
2014-08-28 12:10                     ` Hannes Reinecke
2014-08-28 12:24                       ` Hans de Goede
2014-08-28 12:04         ` Hannes Reinecke
2014-08-28 12:17           ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-08-28 12:26             ` Hans de Goede
2014-08-28 12:33               ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-08-28 12:37                 ` Hans de Goede
2014-08-28 14:08                   ` James Bottomley
2014-08-28 14:17                   ` Hannes Reinecke
2014-08-28 14:56                     ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-08-28 15:13                       ` Hannes Reinecke
2014-08-28 15:50                         ` Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)
2014-08-28 15:54                           ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-08-28 15:56                             ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-08-29  4:39                         ` Finn Thain
2014-08-29  6:08                           ` Hannes Reinecke
2014-08-29  7:48                             ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-08-29 10:14                             ` Finn Thain
2014-08-29 10:30                               ` Hannes Reinecke
2014-08-29 10:39                                 ` Hans de Goede [this message]
2014-08-29 10:49                                   ` Hannes Reinecke
2014-08-28 12:21           ` Hans de Goede
2014-08-28 14:09             ` James Bottomley
2014-08-29  4:37               ` Finn Thain
2014-08-29  4:52                 ` Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)
2014-08-28 12:31           ` Martin Peschke
2014-08-28 14:22             ` Hannes Reinecke

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=54005871.4040300@redhat.com \
    --to=hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=elliot@hp.com \
    --cc=fthain@telegraphics.com.au \
    --cc=hare@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    /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