When James Smart fixed the issue of the userspace scan atributes
crashing the system with the FC transport class he added a patch to
let the transport class check if the parent is valid for a given
transport class.
When adding support for the integrated raid of fusion sas devices
we ran into a problem with that, as it didn't allow adding virtual
raid volumes without the transport class knowing about it.
So this patch adds a user_scan attribute instead, that takes over from
scsi_scan_host_selected if the transport class sets it and thus lets
the transport class control the user-initiated scanning. As this
plugs the hole about user-initiated scanning the target_parent hook
goes away and we rely on callers of the scanning routines to do
something sensible.
For SAS this meant I had to switch from a spinlock to a mutex to
synchronize the topology linked lists, in FC they were completely
unsynchronized which seems wrong.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
We have some nasty issues with 2.6.12-rc6. Any request to scan on
the lpfc or qla2xxx FC adapters will oops. What is happening is the
system is defaulting to non-transport registered targets, which
inherit the parent of the scan. On this second scan, performed by
the attribute, the parent becomes the shost instead of the rport.
The slave functions in the 2 FC adapters use starget_to_rport()
routines, which incorrectly map the shost as an rport pointer.
Additionally, this pointed out other weaknesses:
- If the target structure is torn down outside of the transport,
we have no method for it to be regenerated at the proper parent.
- We have race conditions on the target being allocated by both
the midlayer scan (parent=shost) and by the fc transport
(parent=rport).
Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
This patch basically allows any HBA attached to the SPI transport class
to declare an extra area which the mid-layer will allocate as part of
its device and target allocations.
Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.
Let it rip!
Christoph Hellwig