Re: [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Drop struct Scsi_Host->host_lock around SHT->queuecommand()

["Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>]

On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 22:46 -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 15:35 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
> > 
> > This patch converts scsi_dispatch_cmd() to only hold struct Scsi_Host->host_lock
> > for scsi_cmd_get_serial(), and drops the lock because the call into
> > the LLD with host->hostt->queuecommand().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nicholas A. Bellinger <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/scsi/scsi.c |    3 ++-
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi.c
> > index ad0ed21..06e5b3a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi.c
> > @@ -745,6 +745,7 @@ int scsi_dispatch_cmd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> >  	 * TODO: kill serial or move to blk layer
> >  	 */
> >  	scsi_cmd_get_serial(host, cmd); 
> > +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(host->host_lock, flags);
> 
> So at least from where I stand, my object is to reduce the number of
> times we take and release the lock, which this doesn't do.  As I said
> before: we need to figure out the rest, which likely includes an atomic
> for the serial number (which is almost unused).  I think the check
> against SHOST_DEL is fine unlocked.
> 

Ok, this makes sense if the shost_state == SHOST_DEL check really is OK
to be done w/o host_lock held (I really don't know on this one..)

So if that is the case, then Tim and Vasu can you guys have a look at
dropping the host_lock around serial number usage and post this for
review..?  I will plan to include the host_lock'less serial number patch
into lio-core-2.6.git/drop-host_lock with the rest of the LLD driver
conversion patches from this afternoon and respin a new branch for James
and Co. to review.

Thanks!

--nab