RE: [PATCH]: Flexible timeout infrastructure

James Bottomley
2004-06-16T17:21:14Z

On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 12:10, Smart, James wrote:
> I can appreciate the protectionist point of view. My only contention is -
> how do you really derive that 1 reset is any less valid than 2 ? it totally
> depends on what the original timeout was relative to whatever the duration
> is for the LLDD event that is requesting the reset.

Who said anything about reset?

This is just early notification of something going wrong. If the
command needs to be retried (or an event that throws the command away is
to be triggered), that's done using the EH_NOT_HANDLED and activating
the eh thread.

I'm not wedded to the current method of handling retries. It would be
feasible to use a more normal count to not allow non-retryable commands
to be delayed.

James