From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 01/04] scsi: make scsi_send_eh_cmnd use its own timer instead of scmd->eh_timeout Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:09:04 -0700 Message-ID: <1114452544.5000.11.camel@mulgrave> References: <20050419143100.E231523D@htj.dyndns.org> <20050419143100.0F9A8C3B@htj.dyndns.org> <1114381342.4786.17.camel@mulgrave> <426C2FC3.4090105@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from stat16.steeleye.com ([209.192.50.48]:29067 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262694AbVDYSJK (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:09:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <426C2FC3.4090105@gmail.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: SCSI Mailing List , Linux Kernel On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 08:46 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > If you're talking about scmd->eh_timeout, it's our main timer for > normal command timeouts. If you're suggesting renaming it to something > more apparant, I agree. Maybe just scmd->timeout will do. Sorry ... actually on the ball now; I was assuming you simply wanted not to use the field for efficiency. So, actually having read the description, you think that reusing the eh_timeout in the error handler command submission path could confuse the normal done routine if the host still has the command pending and completes it? Jmaes