Re: [RFC] Disk shock protection (revisited)

[Elias Oltmanns <eo@nebensachen.de>]

Elias Oltmanns <eo@nebensachen.de> wrote:
[...]
> I'm going to send a first draft of a patch series in reply to this
> email. It is a stripped down version intended to get the general idea
> across.

Have you had got round to looking at these patches yet?

> The first of these four patches will eventually need to be modified to
> actually abort in flight commands and clear up the mess afterwards.
> However, first and foremost I'd like to draw your attention to the use
> of REQ_TYPE_LINUX_BLOCK requests as demonstrated in the other three
> patches. The question is whether the underlying concept is right.
> Although the question how to handle REQ_TYPE_LINUX_BLOCK requests in
> the scsi subsystem has been raised on the linux-scsi ml, it has never
> been answered really because this request type was deemed unsuitable
> for the application in question. See, for instance, the thread
> starting at [1]. My patch approach has been partly inspired by the
> patch discussed there. Before I raise this issue yet again, I'd like
> to know whether REQ_TYPE_LINUX_BLOCK is the right choice for my
> application in your opinion or whether another mechanism might be more
> suitable as James suggested a while ago (see [2]).
>
> Regards,
>
> Elias
>
> [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.scsi/30049
> [2] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.scsi/37951

Sorry, I got these two the wrong way round. [1] should be [2] and vice
versa.

Regards,

Elias