From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] move ->eh_strategy_handler to the transport class Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 13:10:28 -0500 Message-ID: <442EC214.1040303@garzik.org> References: <20060401172104.GA16921@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:44507 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751136AbWDASKc (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Apr 2006 13:10:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20060401172104.GA16921@lst.de> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: jejb@steeleye.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Overriding the whole EH code is a per-transport, not per-host thing. > Move ->eh_strategy_handler to the transport class, same as > ->eh_timed_out. > > Downside is that scsi_host_alloc can't check for the total lack of EH > anymore, but the transition period from old EH where we needed it is > long gone already. > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig Looks OK to me. I agree the transport the better place for eh_strategy_handler. I would prefer to merge it through the libata-dev queue, since -- as a glance through the recent kernel changelog shows -- Tejun Heo has been ripping through this part of libata as well. Jeff