On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 10:28 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > That is problematic. The ABORT_TMF does need IO for which we need
> > to wait. And if we just submit and pretend the abort worked, the tag
> > will be reused.
> > Perhaps we could drop the spinlock. I think it is time to talk to
> > the SCSI people.
>
> The abort handler doesn't have to wait for the command to terminate.
> It merely has to initiate an abort and return. The SCSI layer gets
> notified via the usual mechanism when the command eventually finishes,
> whether it was successful or not.
This is stange. I don't see how we can guarantee a command completion
if eh_abort_handler() has sent the TMF.
It was my understanding that returning from eh_abort_handler()
means that a tag is considered free again and will be reused.
Could you clarify?
Regards
Oliver
--
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
