From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261890AbVD0CXM (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:23:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261888AbVD0CXM (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:23:12 -0400 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.203]:59010 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261890AbVD0CXE (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:23:04 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=RmXTt7luyWsWpZgIXZEZo669z1IYXPwVZEtupuzRdACg9xuXKe40qNdlNPbHZSs82T5W0KnZhdcne68KQmHH/XuuNrlUZi8aiBosNXcos8KstyO2biwpHRx+V8snEQBQ8t7aJNm0W1dljgdlaVVRibRZe1RVlyGLr1uBRL3tBrE= Message-ID: <426EF781.6040403@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:22:57 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050402) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Bottomley Cc: SCSI Mailing List , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 01/04] scsi: make scsi_send_eh_cmnd use its own timer instead of scmd->eh_timeout References: <20050419143100.E231523D@htj.dyndns.org> <20050419143100.0F9A8C3B@htj.dyndns.org> <1114381342.4786.17.camel@mulgrave> <426C2FC3.4090105@gmail.com> <1114452544.5000.11.camel@mulgrave> In-Reply-To: <1114452544.5000.11.camel@mulgrave> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=EUC-KR Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 08:46 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> If you're talking about scmd->eh_timeout, it's our main timer for >>normal command timeouts. If you're suggesting renaming it to something >>more apparant, I agree. Maybe just scmd->timeout will do. > > > Sorry ... actually on the ball now; I was assuming you simply wanted not > to use the field for efficiency. > > So, actually having read the description, you think that reusing the > eh_timeout in the error handler command submission path could confuse > the normal done routine if the host still has the command pending and > completes it? Hi, James. Sorry about late reply. Been busy and currently on the run, so please excuse me for being brief. * A command is passed to lldd and starts execution * It times out. * eh runs * abort isn't implemented or fails * eh issues eh cmd (TUL, STU...) * The command miraculously & stupidly completes just now. * The lldd succeeds to delete timer and normal completion path runs. * We're fucked up now. If anything is wrong, please point out. Thanks. Gotta go. -- tejun