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, 29 Jun 2021 17:35:51 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To:     Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
Cc:     Wen Xiong <wenxiong@us.ibm.com>, james.smart@broadcom.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sagi@grimberg.me,
        wenxiong@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] block: System crashes when cpu hotplug + bouncing
 port
Message-ID: <YNrpdy3pJ/3DIxpW@T590>
References: <20210628090703.apaowrsazl53lza4@beryllium.lan>
 <YNmdhqd+W3XbJCwd@T590>
 <71d1ce491ed5056bfa921f0e14fa646d@imap.linux.ibm.com>
 <OFE573413D.44652DC5-ON00258703.000DB949-00258703.000EFCD4@ibm.com>
 <OF8889275F.DC758B38-ON00258703.001297BC-00258703.00143502@ibm.com>
 <YNqX6w8YHO61oqvY@T590>
 <20210629082542.vm3yh6k36d2zh3k5@beryllium.lan>
 <20210629083549.unco3f7atybqypw3@beryllium.lan>
 <YNrhXFgv/gEWbhbl@T590>
 <20210629092719.n33t2pnjiwwe6qun@beryllium.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210629092719.n33t2pnjiwwe6qun@beryllium.lan>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:27:19AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 05:01:16PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > No, this way fails the request allocation, which isn't expected from
> > NVMe fc/rdma/tcp/loop, since io queue can't be connected in this way.
> 
> But __nvme_submit_sync_cmd() can return errors too and they need to be
> handled in the connect path. So why is this so special? Not that I am
> against your patch, I just like to understand the reasoning.

With the two patches I posted, __nvme_submit_sync_cmd() shouldn't return
error, can you observe the error?


Thanks, 
Ming