From: "hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org>
To: James Bottomley <jbottomley@parallels.com>
Cc: "axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
"michaelc@cs.wisc.edu" <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>,
"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"jasowang@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"ohering@suse.com" <ohering@suse.com>,
"hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org>,
"apw@canonical.com" <apw@canonical.com>,
"devel@linuxdriverproject.org" <devel@linuxdriverproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [SCSI] Fix a bug in deriving the FLUSH_TIMEOUT from the basic I/O timeout
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:01:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140718170107.GA7564@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1405702633.30262.3.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com>
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 04:57:13PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> Actually, no you didn't. The difference is in the derivation of the
> timeout. Christoph's patch is absolute in terms of SD_TIMEOUT; yours is
> relative to the queue timeout setting ... I thought there was a reason
> for preferring the relative version.
Yes, KYs version is better. It takes the base timeout drivers set
on the request queue into account.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org>
To: James Bottomley <jbottomley@parallels.com>
Cc: "kys@microsoft.com" <kys@microsoft.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org>,
"apw@canonical.com" <apw@canonical.com>,
"devel@linuxdriverproject.org" <devel@linuxdriverproject.org>,
"michaelc@cs.wisc.edu" <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>,
"axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
"ohering@suse.com" <ohering@suse.com>,
"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"jasowang@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [SCSI] Fix a bug in deriving the FLUSH_TIMEOUT from the basic I/O timeout
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:01:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140718170107.GA7564@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1405702633.30262.3.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com>
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 04:57:13PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> Actually, no you didn't. The difference is in the derivation of the
> timeout. Christoph's patch is absolute in terms of SD_TIMEOUT; yours is
> relative to the queue timeout setting ... I thought there was a reason
> for preferring the relative version.
Yes, KYs version is better. It takes the base timeout drivers set
on the request queue into account.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-18 17:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-04 16:33 [PATCH 1/1] [SCSI] Fix a bug in deriving the FLUSH_TIMEOUT from the basic I/O timeout K. Y. Srinivasan
2014-06-04 16:33 ` K. Y. Srinivasan
2014-06-04 17:02 ` James Bottomley
2014-06-04 17:02 ` James Bottomley
2014-06-04 17:15 ` KY Srinivasan
2014-06-04 17:15 ` KY Srinivasan
2014-06-06 1:32 ` Mike Christie
2014-06-06 2:53 ` KY Srinivasan
2014-06-06 2:53 ` KY Srinivasan
2014-06-06 17:18 ` Mike Christie
2014-06-06 17:18 ` Mike Christie
2014-06-06 17:52 ` James Bottomley
2014-06-06 18:22 ` Jens Axboe
2014-06-20 21:36 ` KY Srinivasan
2014-07-17 23:53 ` KY Srinivasan
2014-07-17 23:53 ` KY Srinivasan
2014-07-18 0:51 ` Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)
2014-07-18 0:51 ` Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)
2014-07-18 15:11 ` Christoph Hellwig (hch@infradead.org)
2014-07-18 15:11 ` Christoph Hellwig (hch@infradead.org)
2014-07-18 15:39 ` James Bottomley
2014-07-18 15:39 ` James Bottomley
2014-07-18 17:17 ` Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)
2014-07-18 17:17 ` Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)
2014-07-18 17:41 ` James Bottomley
2014-07-18 17:41 ` James Bottomley
2014-07-18 18:16 ` Douglas Gilbert
2014-07-18 18:16 ` Douglas Gilbert
2014-07-18 15:10 ` Christoph Hellwig (hch@infradead.org)
2014-07-18 15:10 ` Christoph Hellwig (hch@infradead.org)
2014-07-18 16:44 ` KY Srinivasan
2014-07-18 16:44 ` KY Srinivasan
2014-07-18 16:57 ` James Bottomley
2014-07-18 16:57 ` James Bottomley
2014-07-18 17:01 ` hch [this message]
2014-07-18 17:01 ` hch
2014-07-18 17:05 ` KY Srinivasan
2014-07-18 17:05 ` KY Srinivasan
2014-07-18 17:12 ` hch
2014-07-18 17:15 ` hch
2014-07-18 17:15 ` hch
2014-07-18 17:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-07-18 17:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-07-18 17:03 ` James Bottomley
2014-07-18 17:03 ` James Bottomley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140718170107.GA7564@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=apw@canonical.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=devel@linuxdriverproject.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=jbottomley@parallels.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
--cc=ohering@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.