From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Flexible timeout infrastructure Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 17:27:21 +0200 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1087313241.2710.40.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> References: <40CF0F9F.4050902@adaptec.com> Reply-To: arjanv@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-CRui9zShyh3BEM2MtSju" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:24478 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265691AbUFOP1Z (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:27:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <40CF0F9F.4050902@adaptec.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Luben Tuikov Cc: SCSI Mailing List --=-CRui9zShyh3BEM2MtSju Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 17:02, Luben Tuikov wrote: > Hello, >=20 > This patch introduces a flexible command timeout infrastructure > accomodating completely current behaviour SCSI Core command timeout, > but also offering the ability to hand command timeout handling to > a LLDD, _yet_ still have it all go through *SCSI Core*. to me it somewhat sounds like the wrong approach. I'm all for the LLDD to be able to influence the timeout value, but I consider it a bad mistake to make every driver reinvent timeout *handling*. --=-CRui9zShyh3BEM2MtSju Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBAzxVZxULwo51rQBIRAkOzAKCnos7fN7TzBCDCLC8KSBJR973icwCfSTx7 5+7fisRxH+THfTINYGaqAk8= =9yBd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-CRui9zShyh3BEM2MtSju--