From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sagi@grimberg.me (Sagi Grimberg) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 22:38:31 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] nvme: flush scan_work when resetting controller In-Reply-To: References: <20190618101025.78840-1-hare@suse.de> <20190618101025.78840-3-hare@suse.de> <36c093c6-9fea-aa2f-affe-70957e0c5b1b@grimberg.me> <681a1c11-7d11-6e28-bc64-b14bef22c144@suse.com> <68599577-450a-ade1-451c-f310e5094317@grimberg.me> <66f3dd84-77cd-fc45-025c-4082cf3df7ec@suse.de> <2a6168f3-37f6-1acf-2e89-48a3b9cac8e1@grimberg.me> <960997d6-9ce3-5730-00e6-5b2639502eaa@grimberg.me> <04a61807-ed2c-c91a-6eeb-c3df864fedc4@suse.de> Message-ID: <0a1029ce-c140-f51e-9402-b98483f0b9e9@grimberg.me> >> Hmm. Not sure if that is sufficient, though. >> We do issue several I/O in the course of nvme_revalidate_disk(), and >> as we're running fully asynchronous here the disk might be removed at >> any given time. Cf the above stack trace; we're getting an error for >> the _second_ I/O (nvme_identify_ns is issuing I/O, too, but went >> through without errors). > > Its not protecting against the I/O, but rather against queue freeze. > >> So if we were to go that route we'd need to protect each and every I/O >> with that test. > > Why? Hannes?