Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-10 Thread Johannes Thumshirn
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 07:34:51AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 15:05 +0100, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:38:16PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote: > > > James Bottomley wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 19:43 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > >

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-10 Thread James Bottomley
On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 15:05 +0100, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:38:16PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote: > > James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 19:43 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > > On 01/19/16 17:03, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2016-01-19

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-10 Thread Johannes Thumshirn
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:38:16PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote: > James Bottomley wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 19:43 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On 01/19/16 17:03, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 19:30 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "Bart" =

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-07 Thread Sebastian Herbszt
James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 23:38 +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote: > > James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 19:43 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > > On 01/19/16 17:03, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 19:30 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-07 Thread Sebastian Herbszt
Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > "Sebastian" == Sebastian Herbszt writes: > > >> The only change from the current workflow is that the DEL transition > >> (now the reaped flag) is done before the spin lock is dropped which > >> would fix a tiny window for two threads both trying to remove the >

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-03 Thread Sebastian Herbszt
James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 23:38 +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote: > > James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 19:43 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > > On 01/19/16 17:03, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 19:30 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-03 Thread James Bottomley
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 23:38 +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote: > James Bottomley wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 19:43 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On 01/19/16 17:03, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 19:30 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "Bart" == Bart

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-03 Thread Sebastian Herbszt
James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 19:43 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On 01/19/16 17:03, James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 19:30 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Bart" == Bart Van Assche > > > > > > > > > writes: > > > > > > > > Bart> Instead o

Re: *** GMX Spamverdacht *** Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-03 Thread Sebastian Herbszt
Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > "Sebastian" == Sebastian Herbszt writes: > > >> The only change from the current workflow is that the DEL transition > >> (now the reaped flag) is done before the spin lock is dropped which > >> would fix a tiny window for two threads both trying to remove the >

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-03 Thread James Bottomley
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 18:17 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 08:11:29PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > I am concerned about queuing something as a stable fix if it is > > just > > masking a fundamental underlying problem. > > It's not masking a fundamental problem.

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-03 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 08:11:29PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > I am concerned about queuing something as a stable fix if it is just > masking a fundamental underlying problem. It's not masking a fundamental problem. It fixes the target state so that we can mark a starget as being under del

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-02 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 17:17 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 02/02/2016 04:43 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 10:29 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On 02/02/2016 03:46 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c > > > > b/drivers/scsi/scsi_sy

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-02 Thread Bart Van Assche
On 02/02/2016 04:43 PM, James Bottomley wrote: On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 10:29 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: On 02/02/2016 03:46 AM, James Bottomley wrote: diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c index 4f18a85..00bc721 100644 --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c +++ b/drivers/

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-02 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 10:29 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 02/02/2016 03:46 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c > > index 4f18a85..00bc721 100644 > > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c > > @@ -1272,16

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-02 Thread Bart Van Assche
On 02/02/2016 03:46 AM, James Bottomley wrote: diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c index 4f18a85..00bc721 100644 --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c @@ -1272,16 +1272,18 @@ static void __scsi_remove_target(struct scsi_target *starget)

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-02 Thread James Bottomley
On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 19:43 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 01/19/16 17:03, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 19:30 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > > > > > > "Bart" == Bart Van Assche > > > > > > > > writes: > > > > > > Bart> Instead of representing the states "visible in

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-02 Thread Johannes Thumshirn
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 08:11:29PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > "Sebastian" == Sebastian Herbszt writes: > > >> The only change from the current workflow is that the DEL transition > >> (now the reaped flag) is done before the spin lock is dropped which > >> would fix a tiny window fo

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-01 Thread Bart Van Assche
On 01/19/16 17:03, James Bottomley wrote: On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 19:30 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: "Bart" == Bart Van Assche writes: Bart> Instead of representing the states "visible in sysfs" and "has Bart> been removed from the target list" by a single state variable, use Bart> two vari

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-02-01 Thread Martin K. Petersen
> "Sebastian" == Sebastian Herbszt writes: >> The only change from the current workflow is that the DEL transition >> (now the reaped flag) is done before the spin lock is dropped which >> would fix a tiny window for two threads both trying to remove the >> same target, but there's nothing th

Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information

2016-01-31 Thread Sebastian Herbszt
James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 19:30 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > > > > > "Bart" == Bart Van Assche > > > > > > > writes: > > > > Bart> Instead of representing the states "visible in sysfs" and "has > > Bart> been removed from the target list" by a single state variable,