On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:02:42 +0100
Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com> wrote:

quoted text
> From: Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>
> 
> This patch from Chandra Seetharaman and updated to upstream by me,
> supports LSI/Engenio devices in RDAC mode. Like dm-emc
> it requires userspace support. In your multipath.conf file you must have:
> 
> path_checker            rdac
> hardware_handler        "1 rdac"
> 
> And you also then must have a updated multipath tools release which
> has rdac support.
> 
> ...
>
> +static spinlock_t list_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;

This defeats lockdep.  Please use DEFINE_SPINLOCK.

quoted text
> +#define submit_c9_inquiry(h) \
> +	submit_inquiry(h, 0xC9, sizeof(struct c9_inquiry), c9_inquiry_endio)
> +#define submit_c4_inquiry(h) \
> +	submit_inquiry(h, 0xC4, sizeof(struct c4_inquiry), c4_inquiry_endio)
> +#define submit_c8_inquiry(h) \
> +	submit_inquiry(h, 0xC8, sizeof(struct c8_inquiry), c8_inquiry_endio)
> +#define submit_c2_inquiry(h) \
> +	submit_inquiry(h, 0xC2, sizeof(struct c2_inquiry), c2_inquiry_endio)

These don't have to be implemented as macros.

quoted text
> +static struct request *get_rdac_req(struct rdac_handler *h,
> +			void *buffer, unsigned buflen, int rw)
> +{
> +	struct request *rq;
> +	struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(h->path->dev->bdev);
> +
> +	rq = blk_get_request(q, rw, GFP_ATOMIC);

GFP_ATOMIC is unreliable.  Is it really unavoidable?

quoted text
> +	if (!rq) {
> +		DMINFO("get_rdac_req: blk_get_request failed");
> +		return NULL;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (buflen && blk_rq_map_kern(q, rq, buffer, buflen, GFP_ATOMIC)) {
> +		blk_put_request(rq);
> +		DMINFO("get_rdac_req: blk_rq_map_kern failed");
> +		return NULL;
> +	}
> +
> + 	memset(&rq->cmd, 0, BLK_MAX_CDB);
> +	rq->sense = h->sense;
> +	memset(rq->sense, 0, SCSI_SENSE_BUFFERSIZE);
> +	rq->sense_len = 0;
> +
> +	rq->end_io_data = h;
> +	rq->timeout = h->timeout;
> +	rq->cmd_type = REQ_TYPE_BLOCK_PC;
> +	rq->cmd_flags = REQ_FAILFAST | REQ_NOMERGE;
> +	return rq;
> +}
> +
>
> ...
>
> +
> +/* Acquires h->ctlr->lock */
> +static void submit_mode_select(struct rdac_handler *h)
> +{
> +	struct request *rq;
> +	struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(h->path->dev->bdev);
> +
> +	spin_lock(&h->ctlr->lock);
> +	if (h->ctlr->submitted) {
> +		list_add(&h->entry, &h->ctlr->cmd_list);
> +		goto drop_lock;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!q) {
> +		DMINFO("submit_mode_select: no queue");
> +		goto fail_path;
> +	}
> +
> +	rq = rdac_failover_get(h);
> +	if (!rq) {
> +		DMERR("submit_mode_select: no rq");
> +		goto fail_path;
> +	}
> +
> +	DMINFO("queueing MODE_SELECT command on %s", h->path->dev->name);
> +
> +	blk_execute_rq_nowait(q, NULL, rq, 1, mode_select_endio);

I suspect we could call this after dropping the lock?

quoted text
> +	h->ctlr->submitted = 1;
> +	goto drop_lock;
> +fail_path:
> +	dm_pg_init_complete(h->path, MP_FAIL_PATH);
> +drop_lock:
> +	spin_unlock(&h->ctlr->lock);
> +}
> +
>
> ...
>
> +static void c2_inquiry_endio(struct request *req, int error)
> +{
> +	struct rdac_handler *h = req->end_io_data;
> +	struct c2_inquiry *sp;
> +
> +	if (had_failures(req, error)) {
> +		dm_pg_init_complete(h->path, MP_FAIL_PATH);
> +		goto done;
> +	}
> +
> +	sp = (struct c2_inquiry *)&h->inq;

That's funny-looking and un-typesafe.  Why not do

	sp = &h->inq.c2;

?

(Dittoes in various other places..)

quoted text
> +
> +	/* If more than MODE6_MAX_LUN luns are supported, use mode select 10 */
> +	if (sp->max_lun_supported >= MODE6_MAX_LUN)
> +		h->ctlr->use_10_ms = 1;
> +	else
> +		h->ctlr->use_10_ms = 0;
> +
> +	h->cmd_to_send = SEND_MODE_SELECT;
> +	queue_work(rdac_wkqd, &h->work);
> +done:
> +	__blk_put_request(req->q, req);
> +}
> +
> +static void rdac_destroy(struct hw_handler *hwh)
> +{
> +	struct rdac_handler *h = (struct rdac_handler *) hwh->context;

Unneeded (and undesirable) cast of void*.  Please check the whole
patch(set) for this.

quoted text
> +	if (h->ctlr)
> +		kref_put(&h->ctlr->kref, release_ctlr);
> +	kfree(h);
> +	hwh->context = NULL;
> +}
> +

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/