From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Lord Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi_lib.c: continue after MEDIUM_ERROR Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:13:21 -0500 Message-ID: <45C0B211.2030305@rtr.ca> References: <200701301947.08478.liml@rtr.ca> <1170206199.10890.13.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <311601c90701301725n53d25a74g652b7ca3bfc64c56@mail.gmail.com> <45BFF3D6.9050605@rtr.ca> <45C00AEE.1090708@emc.com> <1170217288.10890.37.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from rtr.ca ([64.26.128.89]:3573 "EHLO mail.rtr.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965007AbXAaPNX (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:13:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1170217288.10890.37.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Ric Wheeler , "Eric D. Mudama" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, IDE/ATA development list , linux-scsi , dougg@torque.net James Bottomley wrote: > > For the MD case, this is what REQ_FAILFAST is for. I cannot find where SCSI honours that flag. James? And for that matter, even when I patch SCSI so that it *does* honour it, I don't actually see the flag making it into the SCSI layer from above. And I don't see where/how the block layer takes care when considering merge FAILFAST/READA requests with non FAILFAST/READA requests. To me, it looks perfectly happy to add non-FAILFAST/READA bios to a FAILFAST request, risking data loss if a lower-layer decides to honour the FAILFAST/READA flags. So it's a pretty Good Thing(tm) that SCSI doesn't currently honour it. ;)