From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Mike Christie <michael.christie@oracle.com>
Cc: mwilck@suse.com,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com>,
Dave Prizer <dave.prizer@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] scsi: scan: retry INQUIRY after timeout
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 08:52:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220809065247.GA9663@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <251c6042-5778-5d82-64e3-a2de5e1e2d36@oracle.com>
On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 05:11:27PM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
> For REPORT_LUNS it looks like we retry almost all errors 3 times. For the
> probe/setup commands, at least for disks, it looks like we also are more
> forgiving and will retry DID_TIME_OUT/DID_TRANSPORT_DISRUPTED 3 times for
> commands like SAI_READ_CAPACITY_16 (I didn't check every sd operation and
> other upper level drivers).
>
> However, for the other probe/setup operations that rely on scsi_attach_vpd
> succeeding like sd_read_block_limits then we will hit issues where the device
> is partially setup. Should scsi_vpd_inquiry be retrying 3 times as well?
>
> An alternative to changing all the callers would be we could make scsi_noretry_cmd
> detect when it's an internal passthrough command and just retry these types of
> errors. For SG IO type of passthough we still want to fail right away.
Yes, I think one single place to do retries for setup path command
is much better than growing ad-hoc logic.
I just made a similar comment to similar nvme patch from SuSE a few days
ago..
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-09 6:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-08 20:20 [PATCH RESEND] scsi: scan: retry INQUIRY after timeout mwilck
2022-08-08 22:11 ` Mike Christie
2022-08-09 6:52 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2022-08-09 8:50 ` Martin Wilck
2022-08-09 8:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-08-09 8:21 ` Martin Wilck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220809065247.GA9663@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com \
--cc=dave.prizer@hpe.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=michael.christie@oracle.com \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=mwilck@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox