From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Anderson Subject: Re: Q: aborting commands Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:20:07 -0700 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20021016002007.GK1049@beaverton.ibm.com> References: <3DAC7F2F.AA9348F7@splentec.com> <20021015222511.GG1049@beaverton.ibm.com> <3DACACAC.9AA42D85@splentec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DACACAC.9AA42D85@splentec.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Luben Tuikov Cc: linux-scsi Luben Tuikov [luben@splentec.com] wrote: > Mike Anderson wrote: > > > > Luben Tuikov [luben@splentec.com] wrote: > > > I've been meaning to ask this for some time now: > > > What is the consensus on the meaning of an aborted command? > > > > > > Most notably in the SCSI LLP standards, a successfully aborted command > > > will NOT return status as non-aborted commands would (normally) do. > > > > > > 1. Should successfully aborted commands call scsi_done()? > > > (of course with result=DID_ABORT) > > > > The new eh on calling eh_abort_handler on a cmd believes that it is the > > owner of the command again. > > Yes, we know. That's why the ability to sleep on eh, else > there's no way out... Ok so is the question should "all" io complete through scsi_done? When I looked at faster recovery of a timed out commands I was trying to determine if it would be simpler for the abort io to call scsi_done. I thought it would be because ownership would be cleaner. It would also be good to start the abort ASAP on a timeout but the context is wrong if the LLDD needs to sleep. -andmike -- Michael Anderson andmike@us.ibm.com