From: Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>
To: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
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: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:57:04 +1100 (AEDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.23.453.2010141103150.6@nippy.intranet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201013065232.hdyjdkurkmowkf2f@beryllium.lan>
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> 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 ;)
>
Me too, so I confirmed the result by executing the code snippets.
> 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.
>
Here's a truth table for v2:
qpair fw_started fcport deleted result
---------------------------------------
F X F X -ENODEV
F F T F -ENODEV
F F T T -EBUSY *
F T T F -ENODEV
F T T T -EBUSY *
T F F X -EBUSY *
T F T X -EBUSY
T T F X -ENODEV
T T T F neither
T T T T -EBUSY
Here's a truth table for v3:
qpair fw_started fcport deleted result
---------------------------------------
F X F X -ENODEV
F F T F -ENODEV
F F T T -ENODEV *
F T T F -ENODEV
F T T T -ENODEV *
T F F X -ENODEV *
T F T X -EBUSY
T T F X -ENODEV
T T T F neither
T T T T -EBUSY
The asterisks mark the changed rows.
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-14 0:57 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
2020-10-14 0:57 ` Finn Thain [this message]
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=alpine.LNX.2.23.453.2010141103150.6@nippy.intranet \
--to=fthain@telegraphics.com.au \
--cc=aeasi@marvell.com \
--cc=dwagner@suse.de \
--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®