From: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
To: Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>
Cc: Nilesh Javali <njavali@marvell.com>,
Arun Easi <aeasi@marvell.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] qla2xxx: Return EBUSY on fcport deletion
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:52:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201013065232.hdyjdkurkmowkf2f@beryllium.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.23.453.2010131058220.10@nippy.intranet>
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 10:59:18AM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>
> > When the fcport is about to be deleted we should return EBUSY instead
> > of ENODEV. Only for EBUSY the request will be requeued in a multipath
> > setup.
> >
> > Also in case we have a valid qpair but the firmware has not yet
> > started return EBUSY to avoid dropping the request.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
> > ---
> >
> > v3: simplify test logic as suggested by Arun.
>
> Not exactly a "simplification": there was a change of behaviour between v2
> and v3. It seems the commit log no longer reflects the code.
How so? I am struggling to see how it could be a change in behavior. But
then I sometimes fail at simple logic ;)
v2 and v3 will return ENODEV if qpair or fcport are invalid and for
EBUSY one of the other condition needs be true. The difference between
v2 and v3 should only be the order how tests are executed. The outcome
should be the same.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-13 6:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-12 17:35 Daniel Wagner
2020-10-12 18:14 ` [EXT] " Arun Easi
2020-10-12 23:59 ` Finn Thain
2020-10-13 6:52 ` Daniel Wagner [this message]
2020-10-14 0:57 ` Finn Thain
2020-10-14 7:06 ` Daniel Wagner
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=20201013065232.hdyjdkurkmowkf2f@beryllium.lan \
--to=dwagner@suse.de \
--cc=aeasi@marvell.com \
--cc=fthain@telegraphics.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=njavali@marvell.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®