From: Nagendra Tomar <tomer_iisc@yahoo.com>
To: James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2.6.23.14] SCSI : scsi_device_lookup/scsi_device_lookup_by_target return NULL for an existent scsi_device
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:56:14 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <622408.27957.qm@web53704.mail.re2.yahoo.com> (raw)
__scsi_device_lookup and __scsi_device_lookup_by_target do not
check for the sdev_state and hence return scsi_devices with
sdev_state set to SDEV_DEL also. It has the following side effects.
We can have two scsi_devices with the same HBTL queued in
the scsi_host->__devices/scsi_target->devices list, one
in the SDEV_DEL state and the other in, say SDEV_RUNNING state.
If the one in the SDEV_DEL state is before the one in SDEV_RUNNING
state, (which will almost always be the case) the scsi_device_lookup and
scsi_device_lookup_by_target will never find the totally legitimate
scsi_device (the one in the SDEV_RUNNING state).
This is because __scsi_device_lookup/__scsi_device_lookup_by_target
always returns the first one in the list (which in our case is the
one with the SDEV_DEL state) and the scsi_device_get() which is called by
scsi_device_lookup/scsi_device_lookup_by_target will return -ENXIO
for this scsi_device, resulting in scsi_device_lookup and
scsi_device_lookup_by_target to return NULL.
So we _cannot_ lookup a perfectly valid device present in the
list of scsi_devices.
The right thing to do is to not have __scsi_device_lookup
and __scsi_device_lookup_by_target match a device if the scsi_device
state is SDEV_DEL. This will also make these functions similar in
behaviour to their scsi_device_lookup/scsi_device_lookup_by_target
counterparts, as the comments in the code suggest.
One way by which we can have two scsi_devices in the list is
as follows.
Suppose a scsi_device has some outstanding command(s) when
scsi_remove_device is called for it. Due to the extra ref being held
by the command in flight, the __scsi_remove_device->put_device call
will not actually free the scsi_device and it will remain in the
scsi_device list albeit in the SDEV_DEL state. Now if we do a
scsi_add_device for the same HBTL, a new device with the same HBTL
(this one in SDEV_RUNNING state) gets added to the scsi_device list.
Infact if we call scsi_add_device one more time, it happily
goes ahead and tries to add it once more, as
scsi_probe_and_add_lun->scsi_device_lookup_by_target does not return
the already existing device. This will though result in the kobject
EEXIST warning dump.
The patch below solves the problem described here by not
returning scsi_devices in SDEV_DEL state, thus allowing scsi_device
in SDEV_RUNNING state (if any) to be correctly returned, instead.
Thanx,
Tomar
Signed-off-by: Nagendra Singh Tomar <nagendra_tomar@adaptec.com>
---
--- linux-2.6.23.14/drivers/scsi/scsi.c.orig 2008-01-23 18:06:02.000000000 +0530
+++ linux-2.6.23.14/drivers/scsi/scsi.c 2008-01-23 19:17:35.000000000 +0530
@@ -951,7 +951,7 @@ struct scsi_device *__scsi_device_lookup
struct scsi_device *sdev;
list_for_each_entry(sdev, &starget->devices, same_target_siblings) {
- if (sdev->lun ==lun)
+ if (sdev->lun == lun && sdev->sdev_state != SDEV_DEL)
return sdev;
}
@@ -1008,7 +1008,7 @@ struct scsi_device *__scsi_device_lookup
list_for_each_entry(sdev, &shost->__devices, siblings) {
if (sdev->channel == channel && sdev->id == id &&
- sdev->lun ==lun)
+ sdev->lun == lun && sdev->sdev_state != SDEV_DEL)
return sdev;
}
___________________________________________________________
Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/
next reply other threads:[~2008-01-23 10:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-23 9:56 Nagendra Tomar [this message]
2008-01-23 14:09 ` James Smart
2008-01-23 22:59 ` Nagendra Tomar
2008-01-30 21:33 ` James Smart
2008-01-28 22:32 Nagendra Tomar
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=622408.27957.qm@web53704.mail.re2.yahoo.com \
--to=tomer_iisc@yahoo.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
/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
Powered by JetHome