From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luben Tuikov Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCSI: Introduce scsi_req_abort_cmd Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:39:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20060201033906.30216.qmail@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1138750263.3307.40.camel@mulgrave> Reply-To: ltuikov@yahoo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: Received: from web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.207.74]:2713 "HELO web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1030235AbWBADjJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:39:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1138750263.3307.40.camel@mulgrave> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: linux-scsi --- James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 21:22 -0800, Luben Tuikov wrote: > > Introduce scsi_req_abort_cmd(struct scsi_cmnd *). > > This function requests that SCSI Core start recovery for the > > command by deleting the timer and adding the command to the eh > > queue. It can be called by either LLDDs or SCSI Core. LLDDs who > > implement their own error recovery MAY ignore the timeout event if > > they generated scsi_req_abort_cmd. > > In theory, the code to do this already exists: the current way to > achieve this is supposed to be to return a status of DID_TIME_OUT to the > command, which triggers error recovery. The only difference between > this and what you propose is that the eh_timed_out API won't get called > (presumably OK since the LLD already knows it wishes to trigger the > error handler) and that the error handler will begin at the device reset > task management function (again, on the assumption that the LLD cleaned > everything up before returning DID_TIME_OUT). Is that sufficient for > your purpose or do we really need another API? No, it is not sufficient. Yes, you really do need another API. Luben