[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.21.1810151342150.10@nippy.intranet>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:45:01 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
cc: "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] esp_scsi: Grant disconnect privilege for untagged
commands
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2018, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > > + *p++ = IDENTIFY(lp && (tp->flags & ESP_TGT_DISCONNECT), lun);
> >
> > I think lp should always be non-NULL here.
> >
>
> It's not clear from Documentation/scsi/scsi_mid_low_api.txt, but I guess
> that's true for scanning of targets.
>
> Is it true in general that queuecommand for a device will not occur
> before its slave_alloc and not after its slave_destroy invocation?
>
> (I'm thinking of queuecommand via the other command submission paths,
> like ioctl.)
>
Nevermind. From a closer reading of the Documentation, I see that it is
true in general.
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists