From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Anderson Subject: Re: Requested changes for the SCSI error handler Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:39:06 -0700 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040608183905.GA1360@us.ibm.com> References: <1086711994.2105.18.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.131]:24742 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265284AbUFHSiz (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:38:55 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern Cc: James Bottomley , SCSI development list Alan Stern [stern@rowland.harvard.edu] wrote: > On 8 Jun 2004, James Bottomley wrote: > > > Well, how about a compromise? I like the ability to alter the host > > settle time; however, I think turning these over to the driver to sort > > out how it pleases gives the LLD more control in this situation, > > certainly for the HOST reset. > > > > I'm less sure that a bus reset timeout belongs in the LLD, but I suppose > > that could be pulled into the SPI transport class eventually. > > > > So, what about Alan's approach using a single flag to give the LLD > > control, but give it control for both the host and bus resets? > > Sorry to appear slow... but isn't that exactly what my patch did? Yes. That is what I thought you sent. -andmike -- Michael Anderson andmike@us.ibm.com