From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] SA Busy Handling Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:44:10 -0800 Message-ID: References: <4C2744E8AD2982428C5BFE523DF8CDCB4A208DF31E@MNEXMB1.qlogic.org> <4C2744E8AD2982428C5BFE523DF8CDCB4A208DF3B0@MNEXMB1.qlogic.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4C2744E8AD2982428C5BFE523DF8CDCB4A208DF3B0-amwN6d8PyQWXx9kJd3VG2h2eb7JE58TQ@public.gmane.org> (Mike Heinz's message of "Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:52:02 -0600") Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mike Heinz Cc: "Hefty, Sean" , Hal Rosenstock , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org > If we don't want to use this, then we should just go all the way back > to the original patch I submitted in the spring. That version does > not have the user space hook or the module parameter. I definitely feel we should not have the module parameter. The new behavior is supposed to always be better, right? So why would anyone ever want to mess with the module parameter? However I think I would like to have at least some idea of what the smarter way to handle "busy" responses will be. If we're always just going to treat them like timeouts, then it seems the SA would be smarter to avoid sending them in the first place. - R. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html