From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Yan Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] scsi: libsas: always unregister the old device if going to discover new Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:28:16 +0800 Message-ID: <5B109320.8040104@huawei.com> References: <20180529022309.21071-1-yanaijie@huawei.com> <20180529022309.21071-4-yanaijie@huawei.com> <8d3c7ee0-b76e-841f-b8e3-0346d22ae0b7@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <8d3c7ee0-b76e-841f-b8e3-0346d22ae0b7@huawei.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: John Garry , martin.petersen@oracle.com, jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhaohongjiang@huawei.com, hare@suse.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, jthumshirn@suse.de, hch@lst.de, huangdaode@hisilicon.com, chenxiang66@hisilicon.com, xiexiuqi@huawei.com, tj@kernel.org, miaoxie@huawei.com, Ewan Milne , Tomas Henzl List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 2018/5/31 23:09, John Garry wrote: > On 29/05/2018 03:23, Jason Yan wrote: >> If we went into sas_rediscover_dev() the attached_sas_addr was already >> insured not to be zero. So it's unnecessary to check if the >> attached_sas_addr is zero. >> >> And although if the sas address is not changed, we always have to >> unregister the old device when we are going to register a new one. We >> cannot just leave the device there and bring up the new. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Yan >> CC: chenxiang >> CC: John Garry >> CC: Johannes Thumshirn >> CC: Ewan Milne >> CC: Christoph Hellwig >> CC: Tomas Henzl >> CC: Dan Williams >> CC: Hannes Reinecke >> --- >> drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c | 13 +++++-------- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c >> b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c >> index 8b7114348def..629c580d906b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c >> @@ -2054,14 +2054,11 @@ static int sas_rediscover_dev(struct >> domain_device *dev, int phy_id, bool last) >> return res; >> } >> >> - /* delete the old link */ >> - if (SAS_ADDR(phy->attached_sas_addr) && >> - SAS_ADDR(sas_addr) != SAS_ADDR(phy->attached_sas_addr)) { >> - SAS_DPRINTK("ex %016llx phy 0x%x replace %016llx\n", >> - SAS_ADDR(dev->sas_addr), phy_id, >> - SAS_ADDR(phy->attached_sas_addr)); >> - sas_unregister_devs_sas_addr(dev, phy_id, last); >> - } > > The preceeding checks in code check for no device/comm fail or SATA > flutter. > > If we're rediscovering the device and the SAS address has not changed, > then why previously still try to discover a new device? I'm guessing > sas_discover_new() had no affect in this case, since maybe since the PHY > was already discovered. When we went here, means it is not flutter, something must change, either the device type or the phy address. Then we call sas_discover_new(). And sas_discover_new() sure *have* effect in this case. Please check sas_discover_new() carefully. But that would not make sense since you say "we > are going to register a new one". Or, if we are always going to register > a new one, how did we ensure we always unregistered the old device > previously (when SAS address did not change)? > If SAS address did not change, the device type must changed, otherwise it will be a "flutter" and won't get here. So if the device type changed, do we have a reason to keep the device? I don't think so. >> + /* we always have to delete the old device when we went here */ >> + SAS_DPRINTK("ex %016llx phy 0x%x replace %016llx\n", >> + SAS_ADDR(dev->sas_addr), phy_id, >> + SAS_ADDR(phy->attached_sas_addr)); >> + sas_unregister_devs_sas_addr(dev, phy_id, last); >> >> return sas_discover_new(dev, phy_id); >> } >> > > > > . >