From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10121C19F2D for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 12:27:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234280AbiHKM1o (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2022 08:27:44 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34734 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233504AbiHKM1n (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2022 08:27:43 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A98BC8E984 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 05:27:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id A389E68AA6; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 14:27:38 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 14:27:38 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Mike Christie Cc: Martin Wilck , bvanassche@acm.org, hch@lst.de, martin.petersen@oracle.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, Hannes Reinecke Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] scsi: Internally retry scsi_execute commands Message-ID: <20220811122738.GC1742@lst.de> References: <20220810034155.20744-1-michael.christie@oracle.com> <20220810034155.20744-4-michael.christie@oracle.com> <6149f7bdfa013e0352e59dee2669298b2c080a03.camel@suse.com> <2b1943b2-466f-5674-1c8c-7db7b2dc4738@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2b1943b2-466f-5674-1c8c-7db7b2dc4738@oracle.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 12:06:41PM -0500, Mike Christie wrote: > 2. Instead of trying to make it general for all scsi_execute_users, we can > add SCMD bits for specific cases like DID_TIME_OUT or a SCMD bit that tells > scsi_noretry_cmd to not always fail passthrough commands just because they > are passthrough. It would work the opposite of the FASTFAIL bits where instead > of failing fast, we retry. Yes, I think this is closer to what I'd like to see. Although I wonder if we should turn it around and require the FAILFAST bits to opt out of automatic retries even for passthrough, even if that turns into a major audit.