Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "scsi_alloc_target".
2020 Mar 11
6
[PATCH RFC v2 02/24] scsi: allocate separate queue for reserved commands
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 09:08:56PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> On 10/03/2020 18:32, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:25:28AM +0800, John Garry wrote:
> > > From: Hannes Reinecke <hare at suse.com>
> > >
> > > Allocate a separate 'reserved_cmd_q' for sending reserved commands.
> >
> > Why? Reserved command
2020 Mar 11
6
[PATCH RFC v2 02/24] scsi: allocate separate queue for reserved commands
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 09:08:56PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> On 10/03/2020 18:32, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:25:28AM +0800, John Garry wrote:
> > > From: Hannes Reinecke <hare at suse.com>
> > >
> > > Allocate a separate 'reserved_cmd_q' for sending reserved commands.
> >
> > Why? Reserved command
2020 Apr 23
0
[PATCH RFC v2 02/24] scsi: allocate separate queue for reserved commands
.../2020 17:30, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 04:00:10PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>> My concern is this:
>>>
>>> struct scsi_device *scsi_get_host_dev(struct Scsi_Host *shost)
>>> {
>>> ????[ .. ]
>>> ????starget = scsi_alloc_target(&shost->shost_gendev, 0,
>>> shost->this_id);
>>> ????[ .. ]
>>>
>>> and we have typically:
>>>
>>> drivers/scsi/hisi_sas/hisi_sas_v3_hw.c: .this_id??????????????? = -1,
>>>
>>> It's _very_ uncommon to have a neg...
2020 Apr 07
0
[PATCH RFC v2 02/24] scsi: allocate separate queue for reserved commands
...t; more would ever be required? But it does still seem better to use the
>>> request queue in the scsi device.
>>>
>> My concern is this:
>>
>> struct scsi_device *scsi_get_host_dev(struct Scsi_Host *shost)
>> {
>> ?????[ .. ]
>> ?????starget = scsi_alloc_target(&shost->shost_gendev, 0,
>> shost->this_id);
>> ?????[ .. ]
>>
>> and we have typically:
>>
>> drivers/scsi/hisi_sas/hisi_sas_v3_hw.c: .this_id??????????????? = -1,
>>
>> It's _very_ uncommon to have a negative number as the SCSI target...
2020 Apr 07
0
[PATCH RFC v2 02/24] scsi: allocate separate queue for reserved commands
...wouldn't that limit 1x scsi device per host, not that I know if any more
> would ever be required? But it does still seem better to use the request
> queue in the scsi device.
>
My concern is this:
struct scsi_device *scsi_get_host_dev(struct Scsi_Host *shost)
{
[ .. ]
starget = scsi_alloc_target(&shost->shost_gendev, 0, shost->this_id);
[ .. ]
and we have typically:
drivers/scsi/hisi_sas/hisi_sas_v3_hw.c: .this_id = -1,
It's _very_ uncommon to have a negative number as the SCSI target
device; in fact, it _is_ an unsigned int already.
But alright, I'll...
2013 Aug 12
6
3TB External USB Drive isn't recognized
...ach+0x52/0x5f [<ffffffff801c71d8>] bus_attach_device+0x1a/0x35
[<ffffffff801c6498>] device_add+0x261/0x372 [<ffffffff8807e226>]
:scsi_mod:scsi_sysfs_add_sdev+0x35/0x21b [<ffffffff8807c610>]
:scsi_mod:scsi_probe_and_add_lun+0x8b1/0x9c9 [<ffffffff8807cab6>]
:scsi_mod:scsi_alloc_target+0x268/0x329 [<ffffffff8807ccba>]
:scsi_mod:__scsi_scan_target+0xc3/0x5c7 [<ffffffff8006342b>]
wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout+0xdf/0xfb [<ffffffff8008d0ad>]
default_wake_function+0x0/0xe [<ffffffff8807d203>]
:scsi_mod:scsi_scan_channel+0x45/0x70 [<ffffffff88...
2010 Jul 07
2
Bug#588310: Xen enabled kernel cannot find the / partition
...fffffff8130b886>] ? mutex_lock+0xd/0x31
[ 374.591031] [<ffffffff8100ee0f>] ? xen_restore_fl_direct_end+0x0/0x1
[ 374.668060] [<ffffffff81190be7>] ? kobject_get+0x12/0x17
[ 374.732606] [<ffffffff8122cf7c>] ? get_device+0x14/0x1a
[ 374.796116] [<ffffffffa002ad89>] ? scsi_alloc_target+0x223/0x260 [scsi_mod]
[ 374.880430] [<ffffffffa002bff0>] ? __scsi_scan_target+0xa1/0x593 [scsi_mod]
[ 374.964739] [<ffffffff8100b513>] ? xen_end_context_switch+0x9/0x12
[ 375.039689] [<ffffffff81010677>] ? __switch_to+0x160/0x297
[ 375.106320] [<ffffffffa002c52f>] ?...