Bug 645881

[revers@revers-desk lpfc-8.2.0.85-8.2.0.86]$ ls -l
total 20
-rw-r--r-- 1 revers revers  208 Oct 22 10:52 ChangeLog
-rw-r--r-- 1 revers revers  448 Oct 22 10:52 r9219_r9217_CR111249.patch
-rw-r--r-- 1 revers revers 1151 Oct 22 10:52 r9222_CR111250.patch
-rw-r--r-- 1 revers revers  451 Oct 22 10:52 r9230.patch
-rw-r--r-- 1 revers revers 1110 Oct 22 10:52 README
[revers@revers-desk lpfc-8.2.0.85-8.2.0.86]$ 

Did some patches get left out?

Emulex: *please* add me on CC when any new bugzillas are created!

(In reply to comment #1)
> [revers@revers-desk lpfc-8.2.0.85-8.2.0.86]$ ls -l
> total 20
> -rw-r--r-- 1 revers revers  208 Oct 22 10:52 ChangeLog
> -rw-r--r-- 1 revers revers  448 Oct 22 10:52 r9219_r9217_CR111249.patch
> -rw-r--r-- 1 revers revers 1151 Oct 22 10:52 r9222_CR111250.patch
> -rw-r--r-- 1 revers revers  451 Oct 22 10:52 r9230.patch
> -rw-r--r-- 1 revers revers 1110 Oct 22 10:52 README
> [revers@revers-desk lpfc-8.2.0.85-8.2.0.86]$ 
> 
> Did some patches get left out?

Rob,

There are no patches missing. This driver rev only includes a few critical fixes, a subset of what was sent upstream.

Joe

Vaios,

A question came up about this during internal review.  See below.  Can you provide a summary of this so we can post this?

Thanks, Rob

> ---
> >  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c |   13 ++++++-------
> >  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> > index 572aa8b..9d7b043 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> > @@ -1716,6 +1716,7 @@ lpfc_sli_def_mbox_cmpl(struct lpfc_hba *phba, LPFC_MBOXQ_t *pmb)
> >  	struct lpfc_vport  *vport = pmb->vport;
> >  	struct lpfc_dmabuf *mp;
> >  	struct lpfc_nodelist *ndlp;
> > +	struct Scsi_Host *shost;
> >  	uint16_t rpi, vpi;
> >  	int rc;
> >  
> > @@ -1747,16 +1748,14 @@ lpfc_sli_def_mbox_cmpl(struct lpfc_hba *phba, LPFC_MBOXQ_t *pmb)
> >  			return;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	/* Unreg VPI, if the REG_VPI succeed after VLink failure */
> >  	if ((pmb->u.mb.mbxCommand == MBX_REG_VPI) &&
> >  		!(phba->pport->load_flag & FC_UNLOADING) &&
> >  		!pmb->u.mb.mbxStatus) {
> > -		lpfc_unreg_vpi(phba, pmb->u.mb.un.varRegVpi.vpi, pmb);
> > -		pmb->vport = vport;
> > -		pmb->mbox_cmpl = lpfc_sli_def_mbox_cmpl;
> > -		rc = lpfc_sli_issue_mbox(phba, pmb, MBX_NOWAIT);
> > -		if (rc != MBX_NOT_FINISHED)
> > -			return;
> > +		shost = lpfc_shost_from_vport(vport);
> > +		spin_lock_irq(shost->host_lock);
> > +		vport->vpi_state |= LPFC_VPI_REGISTERED;
> > +		vport->fc_flag &= ~FC_VPORT_NEEDS_REG_VPI;
> > +		spin_unlock_irq(shost->host_lock);
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	/* Check security permission status on INIT_LINK mailbox command */

I don't quite understand this one. Previously, they were bailing entirely
if REG_VPI was successful after VLink failure. Now, they're doing exactly
the opposite, clearing the NEEDS_REG_VPI flag and setting state to
REGISTERED... So they were bailing on something that wasn't actually a
failure, I take it?

in kernel-2.6.18-231.el5
You can download this test kernel (or newer) from http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/el5

Detailed testing feedback is always welcomed.

(In reply to comment #9)
> Vaios,
> 
> A question came up about this during internal review.  See below.  Can you
> provide a summary of this so we can post this?
> 
> Thanks, Rob
> 
...
> I don't quite understand this one. Previously, they were bailing entirely
> if REG_VPI was successful after VLink failure. Now, they're doing exactly
> the opposite, clearing the NEEDS_REG_VPI flag and setting state to
> REGISTERED... So they were bailing on something that wasn't actually a
> failure, I take it?

Rob,

Previously, when a vport received a clear virtual link while REG_VPI is pending, the driver sent an FDISC after unregistering the VPI. This will cause an FDISC to be sent for an unregistered VPI. This fix allows the REG_VPI to complete when a CVL is received.

Joe

Reminder! There should be a fix present for this BZ in snapshot 3 -- unless otherwise noted in a previous comment.

Please test and update this BZ with test results as soon as possible.

An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0017.html