Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:13:37 +1100 (AEDT)
From:   Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
cc:     "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] esp_scsi: Grant disconnect privilege for untagged
 commands
In-Reply-To: <20181014154753.GA19252@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.21.1810151004440.10@nippy.intranet>
References: <cover.1539497520.git.fthain@telegraphics.com.au> <91b9ff9fc19ba40e3a2562171c8cd78a2ce7dc79.1539497520.git.fthain@telegraphics.com.au> <20181014154753.GA19252@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 14 Oct 2018, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> > +	*p++ = IDENTIFY(lp && (tp->flags & ESP_TGT_DISCONNECT), lun);
> 
> I think lp should always be non-NULL here.
> 

It's not clear from Documentation/scsi/scsi_mid_low_api.txt, but I guess 
that's true for scanning of targets.

Is it true in general that queuecommand for a device will not occur before 
its slave_alloc and not after its slave_destroy invocation?

(I'm thinking of queuecommand via the other command submission paths, like 
ioctl.)

--