From: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
To: Jeremy Higdon <jeremy@classic.engr.sgi.com>
Cc: Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@redhat.com>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH + RFC] Beginning of some updates to scsi mid layer
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:37:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020628033704.B23044@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <10206272241.ZM1032399@classic.engr.sgi.com>; from jeremy@classic.engr.sgi.com on Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 10:41:31PM -0700
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 10:41:31PM -0700, Jeremy Higdon wrote:
> Is there any accounting for the following condition:
>
> An array with multiple logical units can accept 256 commands (for
> argument purposes) from all initiators for all luns. Therefore,
> the number of commands that you can queue to sdX is dependent
> on how many commands queued by this initiator to other sds, as well
> as how many commands other initiators have issued to this sd and
> others.
That's (currently) on a per driver basis. My driver would account for
this situation just fine. Others might not. That is one of the things I
plan to change in the mid layer very soon now.
> This may not be an issue so much with parallel SCSI RAIDs, but it does
> come up with Fibrechannel.
>
> It is theoretically possible to get QUEUE_FULL when the host has no other
> commands in progress on a logical unit. Would the host driver then believe
> that it could issue 0 or 1 command only, or is there some lower limit?
>
> jeremy
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com> 919-754-3700 x44233
Red Hat, Inc.
1801 Varsity Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27606
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-06-28 7:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20020619014048.B8623@redhat.com>
2002-06-19 17:44 ` [PATCH + RFC] Beginning of some updates to scsi mid layer Pete Zaitcev
2002-06-19 17:55 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-06-19 18:25 ` Doug Ledford
2002-06-28 5:41 ` Jeremy Higdon
2002-06-28 7:37 ` Doug Ledford [this message]
2002-06-28 8:25 Martin Peschke3
2002-06-28 11:22 ` Doug Ledford
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-06-28 6:08 Martin Peschke3
2002-06-28 7:39 ` Doug Ledford
2002-06-29 1:19 ` Jeremy Higdon
2002-06-29 2:04 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-06-29 10:05 ` Doug Ledford
2002-06-29 10:37 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-07-01 21:02 ` Gérard Roudier
2002-07-01 19:08 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-07-01 19:15 ` Doug Ledford
2002-07-01 19:23 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-07-01 19:59 ` Doug Ledford
2002-07-01 20:17 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-07-02 11:27 ` Rogier Wolff
2002-06-29 10:10 ` Doug Ledford
2002-06-19 0:47 Doug Ledford
2002-06-19 21:15 ` Patrick Mansfield
2002-06-20 19:45 ` Doug Ledford
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=20020628033704.B23044@redhat.com \
--to=dledford@redhat.com \
--cc=jeremy@classic.engr.sgi.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zaitcev@redhat.com \
/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