public inbox for linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>,
	SCSI development list <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] SCSI: simplify scsi_io_completion()
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:29:49 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1227738589.3387.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0811261447100.29893-100000@netrider.rowland.org>

On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 15:03 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, James Bottomley wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 15:56 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > This patch (as1142b) consolidates a lot of repetitious code in
> > > scsi_io_completion().  It also fixes a few comments.  Most
> > > importantly, however, it clearly distinguishes among the three sorts
> > > of retries that can be done when a command fails to complete:
> 
> > OK, how about this as an update to the patch.  It corrects several
> > things:
> > 
> >      1. For several error conditions, we would now print the sense twice
> >         in slightly different ways, so unify the location of sense
> >         printing.
> >      2. I added more descriptions to actual failure conditions for
> >         better debugging
> >      3. according to spec, ABORTED_COMMAND is supposed to be retried
> >         (except on DIF failure).  Our old behaviour of erroring it looks
> >         to be a bug.
> >      4. I'd prefer not to default initialise the action variable because
> >         that ensures that every leg of the error handler has an
> >         associated action and the compiler will warn if someone later
> >         accidentally misses one or removes one.
> 
> This looks very good.  I'm pleased you didn't find anything actually 
> wrong with the original patch aside from the ABORTED COMMAND handling. 
> 
> I was going to suggest adding a description to the ILLEGAL REQUEST
> case.  But that case arises normally under various circumstances, so
> perhaps it wouldn't be appropriate.  In fact, do you really want to
> print out the result and sense data every time that case occurs?

I think it's OK.  I thought some of the CD probing routines triggered
illegal requests, but I can't seem to see it on my test machines (it
could be I have the wrong type of CD, though).

> > It also looks like 
> 
> ... ?

it also looks like I didn't finish my sentence.

James



  reply	other threads:[~2008-11-26 22:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-11-03 20:56 [PATCH 1/2] SCSI: simplify scsi_io_completion() Alan Stern
2008-11-26 19:02 ` James Bottomley
2008-11-26 20:03   ` Alan Stern
2008-11-26 22:29     ` James Bottomley [this message]
2008-11-26 23:31       ` Alan Stern
2008-11-27  4:13         ` James Bottomley
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-11-17 19:10 Alan Stern

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1227738589.3387.57.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=bharrosh@panasas.com \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox