On 07/25/2017 04:14 PM, Steffen Maier wrote: > Signed-off-by: Steffen Maier <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_scsi.c | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_scsi.c b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_scsi.c > index 05c823ccb959..8e96196fa877 100644 > --- a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_scsi.c > +++ b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_scsi.c > @@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ static int zfcp_task_mgmt_function(struct scsi_cmnd > *scpnt, u8 tm_flags) > break; > > zfcp_erp_wait(adapter); > - ret = fc_block_scsi_eh(scpnt); > + ret = port->rport ? fc_block_rport(port->rport) : 0; > if (ret) { > zfcp_dbf_scsi_devreset("fiof", adapter, tm_flags, NULL, > scsi_id, scsi_lun);> @@ -337,11 > +337,13 @@ static int zfcp_scsi_eh_host_reset_handler(struct scsi_cmnd *scpnt) > { > struct zfcp_scsi_dev *zfcp_sdev = sdev_to_zfcp(scpnt->device); > struct zfcp_adapter *adapter = zfcp_sdev->port->adapter; > + struct zfcp_port *port; > int ret; > > zfcp_erp_adapter_reopen(adapter, 0, "schrh_1"); > zfcp_erp_wait(adapter); > - ret = fc_block_scsi_eh(scpnt); > + port = zfcp_sdev->port; > + ret = port->rport ? fc_block_rport(port->rport) : 0; > if (ret) > return ret; > >
Hmm. So there is a chance where ->rport is simply NULL, in which case we won't be calling fc_block_rport(). However, we _do_ continue with TMF even then. Wasn't that precisely the point of fc_block_rport() to figure out if the rport is valid? So shouldn't we rather return FAILED or something here? If not, why do we continue sending TMFs to a non-existing port? Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking [email protected] +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
