On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 16:43 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 11/04/2013 03:50 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 15:46 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> >> On 11/04/2013 03:25 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 14:36 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 10/3
On 11/04/2013 03:50 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 15:46 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> On 11/04/2013 03:25 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 14:36 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 10/31/2013 04:49 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Looks reasonable to
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 15:46 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 11/04/2013 03:25 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 14:36 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> >> On 10/31/2013 04:49 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>> Looks reasonable to me, but a few minor nitpicks:
> >>>
> +
On 11/04/2013 03:25 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 14:36 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> On 10/31/2013 04:49 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> Looks reasonable to me, but a few minor nitpicks:
>>>
+ spin_lock_irqsave(sdev->host->host_lock, flags);
+ if (scsi_host_eh_
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 14:36 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 10/31/2013 04:49 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Looks reasonable to me, but a few minor nitpicks:
> >
> >> + spin_lock_irqsave(sdev->host->host_lock, flags);
> >> + if (scsi_host_eh_past_deadline(sdev->host)) {
> >
> > I don't hav
On 10/31/2013 04:49 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Looks reasonable to me, but a few minor nitpicks:
>
>> +spin_lock_irqsave(sdev->host->host_lock, flags);
>> +if (scsi_host_eh_past_deadline(sdev->host)) {
>
> I don't have the implementation of scsi_host_eh_past_deadline in my
> local tre
Hi, Hannes:
I'm sorry that I don't know why you didn't consider my former patch
below which not only raises the minimum valid value of 'eh_deadline'
as '0' for your former patchset but also includes some fix for your
this patchset:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg69361.html
If you th
Looks reasonable to me, but a few minor nitpicks:
> + spin_lock_irqsave(sdev->host->host_lock, flags);
> + if (scsi_host_eh_past_deadline(sdev->host)) {
I don't have the implementation of scsi_host_eh_past_deadline in my
local tree, but do we really need the host lock for it?
> +int
> +s
When a command runs into a timeout we need to send an 'ABORT TASK'
TMF. This is typically done by the 'eh_abort_handler' LLDD callback.
Conceptually, however, this function is a normal SCSI command, so
there is no need to enter the error handler.
This patch implements a new scsi_abort_command() f
On 09/20/2013 09:59 AM, Ren Mingxin wrote:
Hi, Hannes:
On 09/02/2013 07:58 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
+scmd_eh_abort_handler(struct work_struct *work)
+{
+struct scsi_cmnd *scmd =
+container_of(work, struct scsi_cmnd, abort_work.work);
+struct scsi_device *sdev = scmd->device;
+
Hi, Hannes:
On 09/02/2013 07:58 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
+scmd_eh_abort_handler(struct work_struct *work)
+{
+ struct scsi_cmnd *scmd =
+ container_of(work, struct scsi_cmnd, abort_work.work);
+ struct scsi_device *sdev = scmd->device;
+ unsigned long flags;
+
On 09/11/2013 11:16 AM, Ren Mingxin wrote:
Hi, Hannes:
On 09/02/2013 07:58 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
If abort succeeds the command is either retried or terminated,
depending on the number of allowed retries. However, 'eh_eflags'
records the abort, so if the retry would fail again the
command i
Hi, Hannes:
On 09/02/2013 07:58 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
If abort succeeds the command is either retried or terminated,
depending on the number of allowed retries. However, 'eh_eflags'
records the abort, so if the retry would fail again the
command is pushed onto the error handler without tryi
When a command runs into a timeout we need to send an 'ABORT TASK'
TMF. This is typically done by the 'eh_abort_handler' LLDD callback.
Conceptually, however, this function is a normal SCSI command, so
there is no need to enter the error handler.
This patch implements a new scsi_abort_command() f
14 matches
Mail list logo
