From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luben Tuikov Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Flexible timeout infrastructure Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:40:02 -0400 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <40CF1852.6030306@adaptec.com> References: <40CF0F9F.4050902@adaptec.com> <1087313241.2710.40.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from magic.adaptec.com ([216.52.22.17]:45754 "EHLO magic.adaptec.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265692AbUFOPkE (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:40:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1087313241.2710.40.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: arjanv@redhat.com Cc: SCSI Mailing List > 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) -- Luben