Re: [PATCH 0/4] scsi: qla2xxx: Bug fixes

[Himanshu Madhani <hmadhani@marvell.com>]

Adding Correct Quinn. Please use "qutran@mavell.com"

We'll take a look at the series

On 9/12/19, 8:49 AM, "linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org on behalf of Roman Bolshakov" <linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org on behalf of r.bolshakov@yadro.com> wrote:

    On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 06:37:22AM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
    > On 9/12/19 1:39 AM, Roman Bolshakov wrote:
    > > This series has a few bug fixes for the driver.
    > > 
    > > Note, #1 only fixes the crash in the kernel. The complete fix for clean
    > > ACL deletion from initiator side is in works and requires a discussion.
    > > 
    > > As of now initiator is not aware that target no longer wants talking to
    > > it, that implies unneeded timeout. It might be fixed by making LOGO
    > > explicit on session deletion but it's an issue I want to raise first
    > > before making the change. Whether we need implicit LOGO in qla2xxx,
    > > explicit or use both.
    > > 
    > > Also, an unsolicited ABTS from a port without session would still result
    > > in BA_RJT response instead of frame discard and LOGO ELS, as specified
    > > in FCP (12.3.3 Target FCP_Port response to Exchange termination):
    > > 
    > >    When an ABTS-LS is received at the target FCP_Port, it shall abort
    > >    the designated Exchange and return one of the following responses:
    > > 
    > >    a) the target FCP_Port shall discard the ABTS-LS and transmit a LOGO
    > >       ELS if the Nx_Port issuing the ABTS-LS is not currently logged in
    > >       (i.e., no N_Port Login exists);
    > > 
    > > FWIW, the target driver can receive ABTS as part of ABORT TASK/LUN
    > > RESET/CLEAR TASK SET TMFs and in case of failed sequence retransmission
    > > requests, exchange or sequence errors. IIRC, some initiators requeue
    > > SCSI commands if BA_RJT is received. Therefore, a timely LOGO will
    > > prevent a perceived session freeze on the initiators.
    > 
    > Hi Roman,
    > 
    > Has this patch series been prepared against Linus' master branch,
    > against Martin's 5.3/scsi-fixes or against Martin's 5.4/scsi-queue
    > branch? I'm asking this because some patches in this series look similar
    > to patches that are already present in the 5.4/scsi-queue branch.
    > 
    > Thanks,
    > 
    > Bart.
    > 
    
    Hi Bart,
    
    To be honest it was prepared against next-20190904 but it applies to
    5.4/scsi-queue cleanly. The fixes made two weeks ago look promising but
    are related to stuck PRLI and unhandled RSCN while #4 is related to
    stuck PLOGI after qla_post_els_plogi_work.
    
    Thank you,
    Roman