On 03/11/2013 07:04 PM, James Smart wrote:
On 3/11/2013 1:05 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 03/07/2013 09:35 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
On 3/7/2013 2:20 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
On 03/07/2013 02:13 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
For lpfc, you never get to the code. Or rather when I was
testing it
Vasquez; Chad Dupuis; Robert Elliot; Smart, James
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2][RFC] scsi_transport_fc: Implement I_T nexus reset
>
>
> On 3/11/2013 1:05 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > On 03/07/2013 09:35 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> >> On 3/7/2013 2:20 PM, Mike Christie wr
On 3/11/2013 1:05 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 03/07/2013 09:35 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
On 3/7/2013 2:20 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
On 03/07/2013 02:13 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
For lpfc, you never get to the code. Or rather when I was
testing it, I
couldn't find any way to propagate an e
On 03/07/2013 09:35 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
On 3/7/2013 2:20 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
On 03/07/2013 02:13 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
For lpfc, you never get to the code. Or rather when I was testing it, I
couldn't find any way to propagate an error beyond the initial
lpfc_reset_flush_io_
On 13-03-07 03:13 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/7/2013 1:19 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
What happens for lpfc? It seems __fc_remote_port_delete ends up calling the
fast io fail code right away and that sets FC_RPORT_FAST_FAIL_TIMEDOUT. We
will then cal
On 3/7/2013 2:20 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 02:13 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>> For lpfc, you never get to the code. Or rather when I was testing it, I
>> couldn't find any way to propagate an error beyond the initial
>> lpfc_reset_flush_io_context() call in lpfc_device_reset_handl
On 03/07/2013 02:20 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 02:13 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 3/7/2013 1:19 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
>>> What happens for lpfc? It seems __fc_remote_port_delete ends up calling the
>>> fast io fail code right
On 03/07/2013 02:13 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 3/7/2013 1:19 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
>> What happens for lpfc? It seems __fc_remote_port_delete ends up calling the
>> fast io fail code right away and that sets FC_RPORT_FAST_FAIL_TIMEDOUT. We
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/7/2013 1:19 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
> What happens for lpfc? It seems __fc_remote_port_delete ends up calling the
> fast io fail code right away and that sets FC_RPORT_FAST_FAIL_TIMEDOUT. We
> will then call lpfc_terminate_rport_io which only wil
Sorry for the late reply.
On 12/11/2012 02:23 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> @@ -793,7 +793,8 @@ struct scsi_host_template bfad_im_scsi_host_template = {
> .queuecommand = bfad_im_queuecommand,
> .eh_abort_handler = bfad_im_abort_handler,
> .eh_device_reset_handler = bfad_im_reset_
On 12/11/2012 01:46 PM, Martin Peschke wrote:
Hello Hannes,
fc_eh_it_nexus_loss_handler() is invoked as the
eh_target_reset_handler() callback and the
eh_bus_reset_handler() is removed.
lpfc_target_reset_handler(), which is replaced by your patch, used to
issue a TARGET_RESET task management
Hello Hannes,
> fc_eh_it_nexus_loss_handler() is invoked as the
> eh_target_reset_handler() callback and the
> eh_bus_reset_handler() is removed.
lpfc_target_reset_handler(), which is replaced by your patch, used to
issue a TARGET_RESET task management function over FCP in the
eh_target_reset_han
12 matches
Mail list logo
