Christoph,  Thanks for reviewing.  I©öll withdraw this patch.  Will rework
with new code and submit at a later time.



Regards,
Quinn Tran




On 12/14/15, 2:37 AM, "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

>On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 08:24:57PM +0000, Quinn Tran wrote:
>> >> +	if (se_cmd->transport_state & CMD_T_ABORTED) {
>> >> +		/* For TCM TAS support n kernel >= 3.15:
>> >> +		 * This cmd is attempting to respond with "Task Aborted Status".
>> >> +		 */
>> >> +		if (cmd->aborted) {
>> >> +			return 0;
>> >> +		} else if ((cmd->state == QLA_TGT_STATE_NEED_DATA) &&
>> >> +		    cmd->cmd_sent_to_fw) {
>> >> +			qlt_abort_cmd(cmd);
>> >> +			return 0;
>> >> +		} else if (cmd->state == QLA_TGT_STATE_PROCESSED) {
>> >> +			if (cmd->cmd_sent_to_fw) {
>> >> +				qlt_abort_cmd(cmd);
>> >> +				return 0;
>> >> +			} else {	/* about to be free */
>> >> +				return 0;
>> >> +			}
>> >> +		}
>> >> +	}
>> >> +
>> >
>> >This is really something that should be explicitly communicated
>> >from the core instead of having to second guess it.
>> 
>> QT> The extra protection of the code here is to reduce erroneous error
>> message and interaction error with our firmware. I think communicating
>> back to the core at this stage might add undue complication.  It?s best
>>to
>> allow the initiator to re-drive the command at this point.
>
>I agree with that statement, just not how it's done.  Having parallel
>command state machines in the driver and core isn't something that's
>maintainable.  We need to attack the root cause instead of trying
>to hack around it in drivers.