From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] use scatter lists for all block pc requests and simplify hw handlers Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 07:51:44 -0400 Message-ID: <1118317904.5043.3.camel@mulgrave> References: <1117847972.23638.62.camel@mina> <1117901234.5005.9.camel@mulgrave> <1117955727.4961.8.camel@mina> <20050606190205.GA6817@us.ibm.com> <1118157976.42a5bc98d6f75@webmail.cs.wisc.edu> <20050607182317.GA12959@us.ibm.com> <42A711BC.9020108@cs.wisc.edu> <20050609000830.GA20616@us.ibm.com> <20050609061838.GB5140@suse.de> Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20050609061838.GB5140@suse.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Jens Axboe Cc: Mike Christie , device-mapper development , linux-scsi , Patrick Mansfield List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 08:18 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > So use a req->retries instead of the fail fast flag? > > Would be fine. Some drivers are messing with ->errors for that anyways, > so would be nice to clean that up. > > It would need to be done _very_ carefully though! Actually, I think there's still a need for both. Fail fast implies more than simply no retry. In the SCSI case it should eventually mean fail the command before we begin transport recovery (at the moment, we simply use the command in transport recovery, however long it takes, and then return the failure). James