From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin K. Petersen" Subject: Re: [PATCH] sd: medium access timeout counter fails to reset Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:23:50 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20140410150830.GA19457@fury.redhat.com> <1397490613.3832.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:27868 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751110AbaDQTX6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:23:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1397490613.3832.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Ewan Milne's message of "Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:50:13 -0400") Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: emilne@redhat.com Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, djeffery@redhat.com >>>>> "Ewan" == Ewan Milne writes: Ewan> Is there some reason why this patch was never accepted? David Ewan> posted it a couple of times last year and Martin ack'ed it, but I Ewan> don't see it in your tree, and I don't see any other comments on Ewan> it. I still don't have any objections. FWIW, the reason my patch didn't handle the recovery scenario is that the devices I originally wrote it for never came back (irreversibly stuck head assembly or dead FTL). -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering