From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CAA4C433E7 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 07:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD0B2073A for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 07:06:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727787AbgJNHGd (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2020 03:06:33 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35818 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726342AbgJNHGd (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2020 03:06:33 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C33EAB1E9; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 07:06:31 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:06:31 +0200 From: Daniel Wagner To: Finn Thain Cc: Nilesh Javali , Arun Easi , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] qla2xxx: Return EBUSY on fcport deletion Message-ID: <20201014070631.oe7hbjtfhsohgr54@beryllium.lan> References: <20201012173524.46544-1-dwagner@suse.de> <20201013065232.hdyjdkurkmowkf2f@beryllium.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Finn, On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:57:04AM +1100, Finn Thain wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Oct 2020, Daniel Wagner wrote: > > How so? I am struggling to see how it could be a change in behavior. But > > then I sometimes fail at simple logic ;) > > > > Me too, so I confirmed the result by executing the code snippets. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me! > I don't know whether the changes in v3 are desirable or not, I was just > pointing out that the commit log ("valid qpair but the firmware has not > yet started return EBUSY") now seems to disagree with the code. I see where I did my thinko. In v3 we have more ENODEV due to the fact that we test the pointers first (qpair, fpcort). If either of them is invalid we get the ENODEV. Actually, it's makes more sense and is likely to be 'more correct'. Anyway, let me update the commit log. Thanks a lot! Daniel