On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 10:01 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 07/03/13 20:57, David Dillow wrote:
> > And I'm getting the strong sense that the answer to my question about
> > fast_io_fail_tmo >= 0 when dev_loss_tmo is that we should not allow that
> > combination, even if it doesn't break the ker
On 07/08/13 19:26, Vu Pham wrote:
> After running cable pull test on two local IB links for several hrs,
> I/Os got stuck.
> Further commands "multipath -ll" or "fdisk -l" got stuck and never return
> Here are the stack dump for srp-x kernel threads.
> I'll run with #DEBUG to get more debug info o
Though, now that I've unpacked it -- I don't think it is OK for
dev_loss_tmo to be off, but fast IO to be on? That drops another
conditional.
The combination of dev_loss_tmo off and reconnect_delay > 0 worked fine
in my tests. An I/O failure was detected shortly after the cable to the
On 07/04/13 10:01, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 07/03/13 20:57, David Dillow wrote:
And I'm getting the strong sense that the answer to my question about
fast_io_fail_tmo >= 0 when dev_loss_tmo is that we should not allow that
combination, even if it doesn't break the kernel. If it doesn't make
sen
On 07/03/13 20:57, David Dillow wrote:
And I'm getting the strong sense that the answer to my question about
fast_io_fail_tmo >= 0 when dev_loss_tmo is that we should not allow that
combination, even if it doesn't break the kernel. If it doesn't make
sense, there is no reason to create an opportu
David Dillow wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 20:24 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 07/03/13 19:27, David Dillow wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 18:00 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
The combination of dev_loss_tmo off and reconnect_delay > 0 worked fine
in my tests. An I/O failure was
On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 20:24 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 07/03/13 19:27, David Dillow wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 18:00 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> >> The combination of dev_loss_tmo off and reconnect_delay > 0 worked fine
> >> in my tests. An I/O failure was detected shortly after t
On 07/03/13 19:27, David Dillow wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 18:00 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
The combination of dev_loss_tmo off and reconnect_delay > 0 worked fine
in my tests. An I/O failure was detected shortly after the cable to the
target was pulled. I/O resumed shortly after the cable
On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 18:00 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 07/03/13 17:14, David Dillow wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 14:54 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> >> +int srp_tmo_valid(int fast_io_fail_tmo, int dev_loss_tmo)
> >> +{
> >> + return (fast_io_fail_tmo < 0 || dev_loss_tmo < 0 ||
> >> +
On 07/03/13 17:14, David Dillow wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 14:54 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
+int srp_tmo_valid(int fast_io_fail_tmo, int dev_loss_tmo)
+{
+ return (fast_io_fail_tmo < 0 || dev_loss_tmo < 0 ||
+ fast_io_fail_tmo < dev_loss_tmo) &&
+ fast_io_f
On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 14:54 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> +int srp_tmo_valid(int fast_io_fail_tmo, int dev_loss_tmo)
> +{
> + return (fast_io_fail_tmo < 0 || dev_loss_tmo < 0 ||
> + fast_io_fail_tmo < dev_loss_tmo) &&
> + fast_io_fail_tmo <= SCSI_DEVICE_BLOCK_MAX_TIMEO
Add the necessary functions in the SRP transport module to allow
an SRP initiator driver to implement transport layer error handling
similar to the functionality already provided by the FC transport
layer. This includes:
- Support for implementing fast_io_fail_tmo, the time that should
elapse aft
12 matches
Mail list logo
