On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:06:56 -0400 Josef Bacik <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 10:02:36AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 09:25 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > Looking through everything I came to the conclusion that we don't really need
> > > the scsi_sysfs_add_devices in scsi_finish_async_scan, which gets run everytime
> > > we do a do_scan_async. In doing the scanning, if we come upon anything we will
> > > already be registering the device with sysfs so the scsi_sysfs_add_devices step
> > > is kind of useless.
> >
> > Unfortunately, it isn't. The registration step while scanning is at the
> > end of scsi_add_lun():
> >
> >
> > if (!async && scsi_sysfs_add_sdev(sdev) != 0)
> > return SCSI_SCAN_NO_RESPONSE;
> >
> > return SCSI_SCAN_LUN_PRESENT;
> >
> > The !async should mean that the addition *only* occurs for the non async
> > scan case ... if you remove the post async scan add, we'll lose devices.
> >
> > > I tested this and it worked fine on my UP box (where the
> > > problem was happening) and my SMP box (where the problem wasn't happening). Now
> > > I'm not entirely sure if this is correct, but I'm attaching the patch that I
> > > used to fix it for me, please point out if I've done something wrong or if there
> > > is a different way this needs to be fixed. Thank you,
> >
> > Could you add some debugging first to see if we're actually adding the
> > device twice (and also, if we are, what the value of the async is).
> >
>
> Sorry I should have put that in the original post, I added debugging to
> kobject_add to check to see if we were adding something twice, thats how I
> figured out who was doing it
>
> kobject rport-3:0-0: registering. parent: host3, set: devices
> kobject rport-3:0-0: registering. parent: fc_remote_ports, set: class_obj
> kobject target3:0:0: registering. parent: rport-3:0-0, set: devices
> kobject rport-3:0-1: registering. parent: host3, set: devices
> kobject rport-3:0-1: registering. parent: fc_remote_ports, set: class_obj
> kobject target3:0:0: registering. parent: fc_transport, set: class_obj
> kobject rport-3:0-2: registering. parent: host3, set: devices
> kobject rport-3:0-2: registering. parent: fc_remote_ports, set: class_obj
> kobject rport-3:0-3: registering. parent: host3, set: devices
> kobject rport-3:0-3: registering. parent: fc_remote_ports, set: class_obj
> kobject rport-3:0-4: registering. parent: host3, set: devices
> kobject rport-3:0-4: registering. parent: fc_remote_ports, set: class_obj
> kobject rport-3:0-5: registering. parent: host3, set: devices
> kobject rport-3:0-5: registering. parent: fc_remote_ports, set: class_obj
> kobject rport-3:0-6: registering. parent: host3, set: devices
> kobject rport-3:0-6: registering. parent: fc_remote_ports, set: class_obj
> kobject rport-3:0-7: registering. parent: host3, set: devices
> kobject rport-3:0-7: registering. parent: fc_remote_ports, set: class_obj
> >> kobject 3:0:0:0: registering. parent: target3:0:0, set: devices
> kobject 3:0:0:0: registering. parent: scsi_device, set: class_obj
> scsi 3:0:0:0: Direct-Access IBM 1742-900 0520 PQ: 0 ANSI: 3
> >> kobject 3:0:0:0: registering. parent: target3:0:0, set: devices
> kobject_add failed for 3:0:0:0 with -EEXIST, don't try to register things with
> the same name in the same directory.
>
> Async in the first case is set and in the second case it isn't set. Thank you,
>
So.... do we now know what is causing this failure?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
