From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Flexible timeout infrastructure Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:42:23 +0100 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040615154223.GA13780@infradead.org> References: <40CF0F9F.4050902@adaptec.com> <1087313241.2710.40.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <40CF1852.6030306@adaptec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from [213.146.154.40] ([213.146.154.40]:14830 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265695AbUFOPm0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:42:26 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40CF1852.6030306@adaptec.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Luben Tuikov Cc: arjanv@redhat.com, SCSI Mailing List On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 11:40:02AM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote: > >to me it somewhat sounds like the wrong approach. > >I'm all for the LLDD to be able to influence the timeout value, but I > >consider it a bad mistake to make every driver reinvent timeout > >*handling*. > > This has very little to do with the timeout _value_, and it has > all to do with *recovery* which is a beast on its own as far as transport > protocols are concerned, especially over non-native interconnects (iSCSI, > USB, > RDMA). I believe I did mention this at the end of the text. > (mea culpa it was kind of a long text) That's why the plan is to move it into the transport class slowly. Remeber there are much more SPI drivers than just aic7xxx/aic79xx ;-)