Re: [PATCH]: Flexible timeout infrastructure

Christoph Hellwig
2004-06-15T15:42:26Z

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)

That's why the plan is to move it into the transport class slowly. Remeber
there are much more SPI drivers than just aic7xxx/aic79xx ;-)