Re: [PATCH] qla2xxx: Return EBUSY on fcport deletion

2020-10-12 Thread Daniel Wagner
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 09:07:15AM -0700, Arun Easi wrote: > This does not appear to be cut against the latest for-next/staging; "rval" > is not used there for the initial set of returns. Indeed, forgot to use staging. It's against queue. Let me update it. > Anyway, returning EBUSY is the right

Re: [PATCH] qla2xxx: Return EBUSY on fcport deletion

2020-10-12 Thread Arun Easi
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, 2:11am, Daniel Wagner wrote: > When the fcport is about to be deleted we should return EBUSY instead > of ENODEV. Only for EBUSY the request will be requeued in a multipath > setup. > > Also in case we have a valid qpair but the firmware has not yet > started return EBUSY to

[PATCH] qla2xxx: Return EBUSY on fcport deletion

2020-10-12 Thread Daniel Wagner
When the fcport is about to be deleted we should return EBUSY instead of ENODEV. Only for EBUSY the request will be requeued in a multipath setup. Also in case we have a valid qpair but the firmware has not yet started return EBUSY to avoid dropping the request. Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner ---