[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1306355387.1641.58.camel@mulgrave.site>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 15:29:47 -0500
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Parag Warudkar <parag.lkml@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCSI IOCTL: Check for device deletion [was Re:
__elv_add_request OOPS]
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 16:22 -0400, Parag Warudkar wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 May 2011, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 13:03 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Parag Warudkar <parag.lkml@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +static inline int sdev_early_check(struct scsi_device *sdev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (!sdev || sdev->sdev_state == SDEV_DEL
> > > > + || sdev->sdev_state > SDEV_QUIESCE)
> > > > + return -ENXIO;
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > Can somebody explain why it's those states, and nothing else?
> >
> > The states are definitely wrong. QUIESCE shouldn't cause an error.
> >
> QUIESCE is not causing an error above - > QUIESCE is which per the
> documentation is correct.
BLOCK means a similar thing.
James
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists