1. 20 8月, 2006 1 次提交
  2. 07 8月, 2006 1 次提交
  3. 09 7月, 2006 4 次提交
  4. 03 7月, 2006 1 次提交
  5. 27 6月, 2006 2 次提交
  6. 20 4月, 2006 3 次提交
  7. 12 3月, 2006 1 次提交
  8. 07 3月, 2006 1 次提交
  9. 06 3月, 2006 2 次提交
  10. 01 3月, 2006 3 次提交
  11. 14 12月, 2005 7 次提交
  12. 11 11月, 2005 1 次提交
  13. 07 11月, 2005 1 次提交
  14. 29 10月, 2005 6 次提交
    • J
    • J
      [SCSI] lpfc: Fix eh_ return codes for commands · 0bd4ca25
      James.Smart@Emulex.Com 提交于
      Return FAILED from eh_ routines if command(s) is(are) not completed
      
      There were scenarios where we may have returned from the error
      handlers prior to all affected commands being flushed to the midlayer.
      Add changes to ensure this doesn't happen.
      Signed-off-by: NJames Smart <James.Smart@emulex.com>
      Signed-off-by: NJames Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
      0bd4ca25
    • J
      [SCSI] lpfc: Fix for "command completion for iotax x?? not found" · 604a3e30
      James Bottomley 提交于
      From: James Smart <James.Smart@emulex.com>
      
      There were scenarios where the error handlers could reuse an iotag
      value of an active io.  Remove all possibility of this by
      pre-assigning iotag resources to command resources.
      Signed-off-by: NJames Smart <James.Smart@emulex.com>
      
      Rejections fixed up and
      Signed-off-by: NJames Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
      604a3e30
    • J
      [SCSI] lpfc: Fix for "Unknown IOCB command Data: x0 x3 x0 x0" · f91b392c
      James.Smart@Emulex.Com 提交于
      Fix for "Unknown IOCB command Data: x0 x3 x0 x0" messages and
      inability to see devices
      
      On some platforms, the host-memory based ring mgmt area was not
      zero. Also, driver wasn't manipulating the entire 32bits of the ring
      pointers.
      Signed-off-by: NJames Smart <James.Smart@emulex.com>
      Signed-off-by: NJames Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
      f91b392c
    • J
      [SCSI] lpfc: Update to Emulex hba model names · 964b77e7
      James.Smart@Emulex.Com 提交于
      Update adapter names to match Emulex naming conventions.
      Signed-off-by: NJames Smart <James.Smart@emulex.com>
      Signed-off-by: NJames Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
      964b77e7
    • J
      [SCSI] update fc_transport for removal of block/unblock functions · 19a7b4ae
      James.Smart@Emulex.Com 提交于
      We recently went back to implement a board reset. When we perform the
      reset, we wanted to tear down the internal data structures and rebuild
      them. Unfortunately, when it came to the rport structure, things were
      odd. If we deleted them, the scsi targets and sdevs would be
      torn down. Not a good thing for a temporary reset. We could block the
      rports, but we either maintain the internal structures to keep the
      rport reference (perhaps even replicating what's in the transport),
      or we have to fatten the fc transport with new search routines to find
      the rport (and deal with a case of a dangling rport that the driver
      forgets).
      
      It dawned on me that we had actually reached this state incorrectly.
      When the fc transport first started, we did the block/unblock first, then
      added the rport interface. The purpose of block/unblock is to hide the
      temporary disappearance of the rport (e.g. being deleted, then readded).
      Why are we making the driver do the block/unblock ? We should be making
      the transport have only an rport add/delete, and the let the transport
      handle the block/unblock.
      
      So... This patch removes the existing fc_remote_port_block/unblock
      functions. It moves the block/unblock functionality into the
      fc_remote_port_add/delete functions.  Updates for the lpfc driver are
      included. Qlogic driver updates are also enclosed, thanks to the
      contributions of Andrew Vasquez. [Note: the qla2xxx changes are
      relative to the scsi-misc-2.6 tree as of this morning - which does
      not include the recent patches sent by Andrew]. The zfcp driver does
      not use the block/unblock functions.
      
      One last comment: The resulting behavior feels very clean. The LLDD is
      concerned only with add/delete, which corresponds to the physical
      disappearance.  However, the fact that the scsi target and sdevs are
      not immediately torn down after the LLDD calls delete causes an
      interesting scenario... the midlayer can call the xxx_slave_alloc and
      xxx_queuecommand functions with a sdev that is at the location the
      rport used to be. The driver must validate the device exists when it
      first enters these functions. In thinking about it, this has always
      been the case for the LLDD and these routines. The existing drivers
      already check for existence. However, this highlights that simple
      validation via data structure dereferencing needs to be watched.
      To deal with this, a new transport function, fc_remote_port_chkready()
      was created that LLDDs should call when they first enter these two
      routines. It validates the rport state, and returns a scsi result
      which could be returned. In addition to solving the above, it also
      creates consistent behavior from the LLDD's when the block and deletes
      are occuring.
      
      Rejections fixed up and
      Signed-off-by: NJames Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
      19a7b4ae
  15. 22 9月, 2005 1 次提交
  16. 11 9月, 2005 1 次提交
  17. 13 8月, 2005 2 次提交
  18. 03 7月, 2005 2 次提交