From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "hch@lst.de" Subject: Re: sort out the ->eh_timed_out mess Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 10:39:01 +0100 Message-ID: <20170201093901.GA1336@lst.de> References: <1485778739-29036-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1485794746.2712.5.camel@sandisk.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:34068 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751519AbdBAJjC (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2017 04:39:02 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1485794746.2712.5.camel@sandisk.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Bart Van Assche Cc: "hch@lst.de" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "hare@suse.de" On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 04:46:00PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > Patches 1, 2 and 4 of this series are a real improvement in my opinion. > However, I'm not sure whether patch 3 is the best way to avoid that drivers > have to re-override the transport template timeout handler. Have you > considered to modify the SCSI EH such that the host timeout handler has > priority over the transport timeout handler? I think that would result in > a much smaller patch 3/4. It's not too much of a difference in patch size, and I think it's the cleaner model to only have the method once. However if there is a consensus against this version I can respin a patch that just changes the precendence.