From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pat LaVarre Subject: Re: SG_IO ioctl (was: mode sense blacklist how) Date: 28 Nov 2003 10:09:29 -0700 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1070039368.2319.76.camel@patrh9> References: <1068767049.2851.166.camel@patrh9> <1068768796.3fb41e1c8d075@webmail.netregistry.net> <1068775834.2851.321.camel@patrh9> <20031113181945.I30194@one-eyed-alien.net> <1068777510.2851.359.camel@patrh9> <1068779468.3fb447ccc6e60@webmail.netregistry.net> <1068838908.2852.34.camel@patrh9> <1069246502.3fbb6826955dd@webmail.netregistry.net> <1069261377.2867.37.camel@patrh9> <3FBBFDFB.9010406@torque.net> <1069345927.6663.27.camel@patrh9> <3FBD679C.5010405@torque.net> <1069447873.14422.229.camel@patrh9> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from email-out1.iomega.com ([147.178.1.82]:28397 "EHLO email.iomega.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262738AbTK1RJ7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:09:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1069447873.14422.229.camel@patrh9> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: dougg@torque.net Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org > > Does "not interruptible" mean > > timeouts don't work, or ... > > only timeouts work, or ... > > only timeouts and resets but not SIGINT ... > > From: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=106937826522932 > Date: 2003-11-21 1:17:16 ... > > "not interruptible" in this context means ... > The SCSI command timeout should bring things > back but often at the expense ... I hear you say: timeouts do cancel ioctl SG_IO but only by way of an automagic reset of the target device that may disrupt contemporaneous talk with other devices nearby. I guess asynchronous reset by a parallel thread not yet mentioned because that service does not yet exist. Right? In 2.6.0-test10 we have no way for another thread of the process trying ioctl SG_IO to ask to cancel the ioctl of the first thread? ioctl SG_IO runs to completion or to timeout or to reboot always? > signals (e.g. control-C from the keyboard or > kill-9) have no effect while waiting for the > SCSI response. I hear you say: SIGINT does not cancel ioctl SG_IO. > The SCSI command timeout should bring things > back but often at the expense ... can have > some nasty side effects (e.g. if your root > file system is on a disk on the same SPI bus). Aye. Pat LaVarre