On Do, 2019-04-04 at 08:51 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 16:47 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > If a reset of a SCSI device requires no relocking of the door, the
> > flag must be reset anyway, lest it trigger unnecessary door action
> > later on.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Oliver Neukum <oneu...@suse.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c | 5 ﭗ橸ṷ梧뇪觬(), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
> > index 16eef068e9e9..afb8cf0cdfed 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
> > ﯦｶ뢯窻㾱쬢ﻇⲉꊷ
> > @@ -1990,10 ퟟ瓶쭚똧 void scsi_restart_operations(struct Scsi_Host *shost)
> > * is no point trying to lock the door of an off-line device.
> > */
> > shost_for_each_device(sdev, shost) {
> > - if (scsi_device_online(sdev) && sdev->was_reset &&
> > sdev->locked) {
> > if (scsi_device_online(sdev) && sdev->was_reset && sdev->locked)
> > scsi_eh_lock_door(sdev);
> > - sdev->was_reset = 0;
> > - }
> > sdev->was_reset = 0;
> > }
>
> I think there are two issues with this patch:
> * Shouldn't sdev->was_reset be cleared only if a device is online instead of
> ignoring the device online state?
> * An analysis of the impact of this patch on the osst and st drivers is
> missing.
> These two drivers namely read the "was_reset" member variable.
True. You are right. This patch would break st.
Do you have any suggestions how resets should be cleanly indicated?
Short of splitting the flag I see no good solution.
Regards
Oliver
