On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 16:18 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Instead of representing the states "visible in sysfs" and
> "has been removed from the target list" by a single state
> variable, use two variables to represent this information.
>
> This patch avoids that SCSI device removal can trigger a
> soft lockup.
>
> See also:
> * "scsi: restart list search after unlock in scsi_remove_target"
> (commit 40998193560d).
> * "scsi_remove_target: fix softlockup regression on hot remove"
> (commit bc3f02a795d3).
OK, could you justify this, please ... like with traces and things.
The theory on which
commit 40998193560dab6c3ce8d25f4fa58a23e252ef38
Author: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de>
Date: Mon Oct 19 16:35:46 2015 +0200
scsi: restart list search after unlock in scsi_remove_target
Was based is that the race you're claiming to be fixing no longer exists
because it was fixed by
commit f2495e228fce9f9cec84367547813cbb0d6db15a
Author: James Bottomley <jbottom...@parallels.com>
Date: Tue Jan 21 07:01:41 2014 -0800
[SCSI] dual scan thread bug fix
If that isn't the case, we can fix it, but I'd like to see the evidence.
Thanks,
James
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
