On Wed, 09 Feb 2005, Andrew Vasquez wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > seems like sdev->shost is bogus when fc_remote_port_block() is
> > > called...
> >
> > We haven't seen this in our testing
> >
>
> Actually it's not the sdev->host that's bogus -- it appears t
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > seems like sdev->shost is bogus when fc_remote_port_block() is
> > called...
>
> We haven't seen this in our testing
>
Actually it's not the sdev->host that's bogus -- it appears the sdev
is referenced after it's been freed -- a reference st
> seems like sdev->shost is bogus when fc_remote_port_block() is
> called...
We haven't seen this in our testing
> lpfc_ext_debug -- residuals from some test code?
yep - thought I had everything, guess not. I'm rebacking to
scsi-misc-2.6 and will repost. This will be taken care of.
-- Jame
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This patch also moves the dev_loss attribute from the target-level
> fc_transport device to the remote port device. It also deletes the
> link_down attribute. The fc_target_block and fc_target_unblock
> routines have been replaced by fc_remo
This one doesn't apply to scsi-misc + your previous two patches for me.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Do you want to free the memory in the struct device's release
> function like the scsi_device's release function? If userspace
> has a sysfs file open and is reading or writing to it at the
> same time you free the memory here, will fun things happen?
Yep...
Here's a small patch to correct for
+static void
+fc_rport_terminate(struct fc_rport *rport)
+{
+ struct Scsi_Host *shost = rport_to_shost(rport);
+ struct device *dev = &rport->dev;
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ if (rport->starget) {
+ scsi_forget_target(rport->starget);
+ __scsi_rem
7 matches
Mail list logo
