From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: keith.busch@intel.com (Keith Busch) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 17:56:33 -0400 Subject: RFC: what to do about abort? In-Reply-To: <20160505141118.GA5260@infradead.org> References: <20160504100313.GA22726@infradead.org> <5729CCC9.9060307@suse.de> <20160504105815.GA20848@infradead.org> <20160505141118.GA5260@infradead.org> Message-ID: <20160505215633.GF8503@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, May 05, 2016@07:11:18AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > You're the maintainer, so it's up to you - it just doesn't seem very > useful to me from both the host and device perspectice. If you don't find a deterministic event on failure to be useful for the device side, you must have better visibility into your internal device state than most others do. :) The spec so badly defines abort, though, I have to agree you're right to remove it. Since having a dependable event greatly helps debugging field issues when device makers desperately want to blame the driver for command timeouts, does it sound okay to have a module param toggle its use, defaulting to off?