From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luben Tuikov Subject: Re: Possible bug handling bad I/Os? Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:16:47 -0400 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3D6E731F.CE4C3A1F@splentec.com> References: <20020829124142.D31625@redhat.com> <20020829132728.G31625@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from splentec.com (canoe.splentec.com [209.47.35.250]) by pepsi.splentec.com (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g7TJGjH27761 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:16:45 -0400 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: linux-scsi Doug Ledford wrote: > > > Yep. It's the queue starvation issue that someone else brought up (can't > remember who that was...). Basically, if you don't have some outstanding > command that will complete after you fail your queue_command() call then > there is no method of goosing the current holding queue in the mid layer. > It doesn't have a timer backup goose method as of yet. > How hard would that be to add? Wouldn't it be an implied implementation as per SAM-3 status codes? (One can do magic using the new list implementation and macros... :-) -- Luben