All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
To: Patrick Mansfield <patmans@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
	hch@lst.de, James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com,
	alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, albertcc@tw.ibm.com,
	arjan@infradead.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] SCSI: implement scsi_eh_schedule_cmd()
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:32:14 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <443DE25E.90905@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060412161842.GA19787@us.ibm.com>

Hello, Luben, Patrick.

Patrick Mansfield wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:24:42AM -0700, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>> --- Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Patrick Mansfield wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 01:41:57PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>>> Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
>>>>>> +int scsi_eh_schedule_cmd(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd)
> 
>>>> Per other email it should be called scsi_req_abort_cmd() or such, as that
>>>> is the only reason to call it, correct?
>>> Well, it's named this way is to keep it consistent with 
>>> scsi_eh_schedule_host().  Either name is okay with me but driver which 
>>> use this function probably have interest in schedule_host() but not in 
>>> other SCSI EH functions.  So, considering that, I think the current 
>>> naming is okay.
>> Tejun, note that scsi_req_abort_cmd() absolves your patch.
>> I think this is what Pat is trying to say.  I.e. it is much
>> more general and thus applies to more applications (as in uses).
>> Plus it is shorter, simpler (3 lines) and more straightforward.

Yeap, I kind of misunderstood Patrick's mail.  scsi_req_abort_cmd() is 
good but...

* The event is not really a timeout.  It shouldn't be logged as 
TIMEOUT_ERROR or completed with DID_TIME_OUT when add_scmd fails.

* Similarly, I don't think it's a good idea to call ->eh_timed_out() on 
explicit command abort.  If something common has to be done, it's better 
to make a function for that can calling the function from both 
->eh_timed_out() and after scsi_req_abort_cmd() succeeds.  Otherwise, 
libata has to decide whether ->eh_timed_out() is called from real 
timeout or explicit abortion and skip timeout processing for explicit 
abortions.

* I don't really understand what you mean by saying scsi_req_abort_cmd() 
is more generic.  If it means the WARN_ON(!->eh_strategy_handler) part. 
  That's just a safety net as standard SCSI doesn't know what to do with 
commands directly aborted by LLDD.  If it's something else, please 
elaborate.

> Both implementations work ... really I'd prefer a scsi_times_out() and
> scsi_abort_cmd() that call a __scsi_abort_cmd().

__scsi_abort_cmd() would just contain scmd_add, I think.

> If we implement them right, in the future those simple interfaces can stay
> the same even if we no longer have to invoke eh to abort a command.
> 
>> So, scsi_eh_reschedule_host() is equivalent to simply scsi_req_abort_cmd(cmd)
>> xor scsi_req_dev_reset(dev), the latter in case you want to notify without
>> piggybacking on a command.

Can you please post the patch for scsi_req_dev_reset()?  One thing to 
note is that libata might not have sdev to call that function with when 
it wants to invoke EH for hotplug.

>> Also, your routine calls more specific eh routines and you should try
>> to be more general.

Please, elaborate.

>>>> Any other handling can be completed by calling the ->done function.
>>>>
>>>> Even the abort/cancel could be done in the driver without this, I assume
>>>> it is avaiable so the driver can use the eh process and existing code
>>>> paths rather than duplicate similar code.
>>> Yeap, as I noted earlier, passing scmds to EH is possible without this 
>>> function but it has to be done in a quite hackish way.  My earlier 
> 
> I didn't mean pass them to eh, I mean the driver or transport could have
> its own work queue (or not ... we don't need a work queue or process
> context to send commands, scsi core sends commands without a work queue or
> process context), and issue the abort. Then on completion set error to
> DID_TIME_OUT (or whatever makes sense) and call the ->done function.
> 
> We should move towards driver/transport supplied eh, that is invoked by
> the driver/transport specific code, not (possibly) by a single timeout. I
> thought this was the direction everyone wanted to go.

I think it's good have some infrastructure in SCSI.  e.g. libata can do 
everything itself but it's just nice to have SCSI EH infrastructure to 
build upon (EH thread, scmd draining & plugging...).

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

  reply	other threads:[~2006-04-13  5:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-04-01 10:38 [PATCH] SCSI: implement scsi_eh_schedule() Tejun Heo
2006-04-01 20:14 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-04-02  1:15   ` Tejun Heo
2006-04-02 16:04     ` [PATCH 1/2] SCSI: implement scsi_eh_schedule_cmd() Tejun Heo
2006-04-02 16:06       ` [PATCH 2/2] SCSI: implement scsi_eh_schedule_host() Tejun Heo
2006-04-11 17:43         ` Jeff Garzik
2006-04-02 23:49       ` [PATCH 1/2] SCSI: implement scsi_eh_schedule_cmd() Luben Tuikov
2006-04-03  1:24         ` Tejun Heo
2006-04-11 17:41       ` Jeff Garzik
2006-04-11 21:28         ` Patrick Mansfield
2006-04-12  2:21           ` Tejun Heo
2006-04-12  8:24             ` Luben Tuikov
2006-04-12 16:18               ` Patrick Mansfield
2006-04-13  5:32                 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2006-04-14  8:49                   ` Luben Tuikov
2006-04-14 12:02                     ` Tejun Heo
2006-04-19 18:49                       ` Luben Tuikov
2006-04-20  2:07                         ` Tejun Heo
2006-04-20 13:01                           ` Christoph Hellwig
2006-04-21  2:22                             ` Tejun Heo
2006-04-20 19:23                           ` Luben Tuikov
2006-04-21  2:39                             ` Tejun Heo

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=443DE25E.90905@gmail.com \
    --to=htejun@gmail.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=albertcc@tw.ibm.com \
    --cc=arjan@infradead.org \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
    --cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ltuikov@yahoo.com \
    --cc=patmans@us.ibm.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.