From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] make the SCSI mid-layer obey the device online flag Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:51:52 +0100 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030606215152.B3240@infradead.org> References: <1054742495.1674.18.camel@mulgrave> <20030604165146.GA1426@beaverton.ibm.com> <1054754103.2360.8.camel@mulgrave> <20030606073603.A13259@infradead.org> <3EE0B316.4060207@rogers.com> <1054913984.1778.31.camel@mulgrave> <3EE0B8D8.4020909@rogers.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([195.224.96.167]:42764 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262202AbTFFUiU (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:38:20 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EE0B8D8.4020909@rogers.com>; from tluben@rogers.com on Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 11:52:56AM -0400 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Luben Tuikov Cc: James Bottomley , Mike Anderson , SCSI Mailing List , Alan Stern On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 11:52:56AM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote: > > Thus, we allow any special command because we assume it's part of error > > handling (or post error clean up). > > So SCSI Core _has_ decided to know about ULP (block, tape, optical). > > Unless we (SCSI Core) generate those, it's a pickle to decide > which are ``special'' enough commands. I think that we'll see > more user space drivers controlling devices via sg sending > commands to the device for exactly those kinds of problems... > Else the burden on SCSI Core will/might be too great. I think James means REQ_SPECIAL request. But some of them aren't special enough so we might need another flag for those. But having knowledge about the upper drivers in the core sounds like a really bad idea.