Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:52:32 +0200
From:   Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
To:     Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>
Cc:     Nilesh Javali <njavali@marvell.com>, Arun Easi <aeasi@marvell.com>,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] qla2xxx: Return EBUSY on fcport deletion
Message-ID: <20201013065232.hdyjdkurkmowkf2f@beryllium.lan>
References: <20201012173524.46544-1-dwagner@suse.de>
 <alpine.LNX.2.23.453.2010131058220.10@nippy.intranet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.23.453.2010131058220.10@nippy.intranet>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 10:59:18AM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> 
> > When the fcport is about to be deleted we should return EBUSY instead
> > of ENODEV. Only for EBUSY the request will be requeued in a multipath
> > setup.
> > 
> > Also in case we have a valid qpair but the firmware has not yet
> > started return EBUSY to avoid dropping the request.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
> > ---
> > 
> > v3: simplify test logic as suggested by Arun.
> 
> Not exactly a "simplification": there was a change of behaviour between v2 
> and v3. It seems the commit log no longer reflects the code.

How so? I am struggling to see how it could be a change in behavior. But
then I sometimes fail at simple logic ;)

v2 and v3 will return ENODEV if qpair or fcport are invalid and for
EBUSY one of the other condition needs be true. The difference between
v2 and v3 should only be the order how tests are executed. The outcome
should be the same.