Re: Why shoud we cause panic in scsi_da.c?

Hi.

On 13.07.2015 11:51, Kohji Okuno wrote:
>> On 07/13/15 10:11, Kohji Okuno wrote:
>>> Could you comment on my quesion?
>>>
>>>> I found panic() in scsi_da.c. Please find the following.
>>>> I think we should return with error without panic().
>>>> What do you think about this?
>>>>
>>>> scsi_da.c:
>>>> 3018	                } else if (bp != NULL) {
>>>> 3019 if ((done_ccb->ccb_h.status & CAM_DEV_QFRZN) != 0)
>>>> 3020	                                panic("REQ_CMP with QFRZN");
>>>>
>>
>> It looks to me more like an KASSERT() is appropriate here.

As I can see, this panic() call was added by ken_at_ about 15 years ago.
I've added him to CC in case he has some idea why it was done. From my
personal opinion I don't see much reasons to allow CAM_DEV_QFRZN to be
returned only together with error. While is may have little sense in
case of successful command completion, I don't think it should be
treated as error. Simply removing this panic is probably a bad idea,
since if it happens device will just remain frozen forever, that will be
will be difficult to diagnose, but I would better just dropped device
freeze in that case same as in case of completion with error.

-- 
Alexander Motin