RE: Transport affected timeouts...

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>]

On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 14:39, Smart, James wrote:
> I had looked at the patch.  I don't think it works as well as the
> incrementer. But it would be a start. We would need the st driver, and scsi
> generic to use it as well. It doesn't address the timeout changing post
> slave_configure. The other thing that bothers me is that it uses an explicit
> value. As per the thread, it would have been better to know what the
> original default was and just increment/double it - and there is the issue
> of different device types needing different defaults.

I don't think it's a good idea to alter *every* timeout, merely the
usual ones (hence, really only read and write in the patch).

Why do you need it to be variable post slave_configure?

James