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
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
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
---
3 matches
Mail list logo