Re: [PATCH]: Flexible timeout infrastructure

Arjan van de Ven
2004-06-15T15:43:33Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 830 bytes --]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 11:40:02AM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> >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)

so I can see the point of a new level of error handling function pointer,
which gets called on timeout expiry and which can return if the mid layer
needs to go into eh thread or not, or if the timeout deserves an extension.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]