[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191204214800.GD7678@amd>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 22:48:00 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Himanshu Madhani <hmadhani@...vell.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 084/321] scsi: qla2xxx: Fix NPIV handling for FC-NVMe
Hi!
> From: Himanshu Madhani <hmadhani@...vell.com>
>
> [ Upstream commit 5e6803b409ba3c18434de6693062d98a470bcb1e ]
>
> This patch fixes issues with NPIV port with FC-NVMe. Clean up code for
> remoteport delete and also call nvme_delete when deleting VPs.
> @@ -564,7 +554,7 @@ static void qla_nvme_remoteport_delete(struct nvme_fc_remote_port *rport)
> schedule_work(&fcport->free_work);
> }
>
> - fcport->nvme_flag &= ~(NVME_FLAG_REGISTERED | NVME_FLAG_DELETING);
> + fcport->nvme_flag &= ~NVME_FLAG_DELETING;
> ql_log(ql_log_info, fcport->vha, 0x2110,
> "remoteport_delete of %p completed.\n", fcport);
> }
Current -next-20191204 contains
fcport->nvme_flag &= ~NVME_FLAG_REGISTERED;
fcport->nvme_flag &= ~NVME_FLAG_DELETING;
... and there's no explanation in changelog why removing
NVME_FLAG_REGISTERED is good idea.
Are you sure this change is correct and suitable for -stable?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists