From: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
To: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com>
Cc: Jeremy Higdon <jeremy@classic.engr.sgi.com>,
Martin Peschke3 <MPESCHKE@de.ibm.com>,
Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@redhat.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH + RFC] Beginning of some updates to scsi mid layer
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 06:05:09 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020629060509.A23827@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0206281902170.16861-100000@beppo>; from mjacob@feral.com on Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 07:04:28PM -0700
On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 07:04:28PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> FWIW, Bob Snively (on T10 commitee) has always claimed that the correct
> response to QUEUE FULL is immediate command resubmission (i.e., *don't* wait
> for a command to complete (the QFULL may have resulted from commands being
> processed for *another* initiator), and *don't* a period of time for things to
> 'get better').
>
> I'm not sure agree with this 100%, but he might have a point.
No, absolutely not! Faster drivers are capable of restarting commands on
the bus so fast that in this scenario they can flood the bus with
selection, command, queue full sequences and not allow *any* commands to
complete because the bus is always tied up (this was, in fact, one of the
reasons that I had to put the queue handling code in the aic7xxx driver
when I did).
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com> 919-754-3700 x44233
Red Hat, Inc.
1801 Varsity Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27606
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-06-29 10:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-06-28 6:08 [PATCH + RFC] Beginning of some updates to scsi mid layer 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 [this message]
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
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-06-28 8:25 Martin Peschke3
2002-06-28 11:22 ` Doug Ledford
[not found] <20020619014048.B8623@redhat.com>
2002-06-19 17:44 ` 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
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=20020629060509.A23827@redhat.com \
--to=dledford@redhat.com \
--cc=MPESCHKE@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jeremy@classic.engr.sgi.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjacob@feral.com \
--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