From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Anderson Subject: Clarification - export of scsi_finish_command and scsi_times_out Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:18:05 -0700 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040608231805.GE1360@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.131]:24805 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265399AbUFHXS6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:18:58 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Cc: hch@infradead.org, jgarzik@pobox.com On a previous thread to resolve a libata issue scsi_finish_command was exported. The thread can be reference at the url below. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=107799572900002&r=1&w=2 My question is why did we export scsi_finish_command and not a wrapper that included scsi_decide_disposition. If a LLDD did not have a eh_strategy routine it is possible post recovery the io would be retried. Is it because it was believed that these timed out commands handled by the libata eh_strategy_handler would most likely not succeed on retry? Also there was a previous patch posted by Christoph to allow a LLDD to handle timeouts directly instead of waiting for the host_failed count to be reached where they could then be handled in a eh_strategy_handler. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=107460498631200&w=2 What is the current thought on this patch. -andmike -- Michael Anderson andmike@us.ibm.com