James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 10:34 -0600, Brian King wrote:
The new libata-eh is used for more than just EH. It is used for device
probing, device revalidation, and power management. It is also woken for
all command failures and is where the request sense for ATAPI devices is
iss
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 10:34 -0600, Brian King wrote:
> The new libata-eh is used for more than just EH. It is used for device
> probing, device revalidation, and power management. It is also woken for
> all command failures and is where the request sense for ATAPI devices is
> issued. Device revali
James Bottomley wrote:
> I keep hearing that we need to convert libsas to use libata's new error
> handling. Unfortunately, I have very little conception of what that
> means. Right at the moment, libsas doesn't use any error handling
> functions of libata at all.
>
> I've looked through the lib
I keep hearing that we need to convert libsas to use libata's new error
handling. Unfortunately, I have very little conception of what that
means. Right at the moment, libsas doesn't use any error handling
functions of libata at all.
I've looked through the libata-eh functions, and I find them f
On 08/19/05 17:10, Patrick Mansfield wrote:
> Luben -
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 04:43:41PM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>
>>On 08/19/05 16:11, Patrick Mansfield wrote:
>
>
>>>I was changing it to wakeup the eh even while other IO is outstanding, so
>>>the eh can wakeup and cancel individual com
Luben -
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 04:43:41PM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> On 08/19/05 16:11, Patrick Mansfield wrote:
> > I was changing it to wakeup the eh even while other IO is outstanding, so
> > the eh can wakeup and cancel individual commands while other IO is still
> > using the HBA.
>
> Hm
On 08/19/05 16:29, Mike Anderson wrote:
> Luben Tuikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Consider this: When SCSI Core told you that the command timed out,
>> A) it has already finished,
>> B) it hasn't already finished.
>>
>>In case A, you can return EH_HANDLED. In case B, you return
>>EH_NO
On 08/19/05 16:11, Patrick Mansfield wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 04:03:15PM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>>The eh_timed_out + eh_strategy_handler is actually pretty perfect,
>>and _complete_, for any application and purpose in recovering a
>
>
> One other point: Another problems is that we qui
Luben Tuikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 08/19/05 15:38, Patrick Mansfield wrote:
> The eh_timed_out + eh_strategy_handler is actually pretty perfect,
> and _complete_, for any application and purpose in recovering a
> LU/device/host (in that order ;-) ).
>
> > The two problems I see with the
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 04:03:15PM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> On 08/19/05 15:38, Patrick Mansfield wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:46:35PM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Using the command time out hook and the strategy routine, gives _complete_
> >>control over host recovery, and
On 08/19/05 15:38, Patrick Mansfield wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:46:35PM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>
>
>>Using the command time out hook and the strategy routine, gives _complete_
>>control over host recovery, and I really do mean _complete_.
>>
>
>
> I assume you mean hostt->eh_timed_
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:46:35PM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>
> Using the command time out hook and the strategy routine, gives _complete_
> control over host recovery, and I really do mean _complete_.
>
I assume you mean hostt->eh_timed_out.
Is anyone implmenting (or has implemented) a ->eh
On 08/19/05 01:40, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I genearally agree that the events are somewhat standard for block
> devices but IMHO SCSI EH also has fair amount SCSI-specific assumptions
> and ATA is a bit too different from SCSI to fit cleanly into it. For
> example, when handling NCQ errors, the wh
On 08/18/05 23:49, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 1) The fine-grained hooks of the SCSI layer are somewhat standard for
> block devices. The events they signify -- timeout, abort cmd, dev
> reset, bus reset, and host reset -- map precisely to the events that we
> must deal with at the ATA level.
"dev re
Tejun Heo wrote:
Heh... Maybe I'm just reluctant to let go of my patches. Anyways, I'll
now stand down and see how things go and try to help.
Note that my email simply describes a long term target. For the short
term, and perhaps medium term, libata will continue to use
->eh_strategy_hand
Hi, Jeff.
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Tejun,
In an email I cannot find anymore, you asked why I was interested in
converting libata to use the fine-grained EH hooks in the SCSI layer,
rather than continued with the current ->eh_strategy_handler() method.
Several reasons:
1) The fine-grained hook
Tejun,
In an email I cannot find anymore, you asked why I was interested in
converting libata to use the fine-grained EH hooks in the SCSI layer,
rather than continued with the current ->eh_strategy_handler() method.
Several reasons:
1) The fine-grained hooks of the SCSI layer are somewhat
17 matches
Mail list logo
