Hi Martin, Thanks for your reviews. I think there is a mistake: 1. In fact, the tur checker feature has never been removed. The tur checker has just been renamed to "ping" checker and the keep alive command checker feature is added into this checker. So, the renamed checker remains "tur" and add "keep alive". Absolutely, I agree that SCSI is going to stay for some time to come, So it can support a SCSI device by "tur" and support a NVMe device by "keep alive". 2. If add a new checker for "keep alive", it maybe increase the redundancy of code. And, when the SCSI LUN and the NVMe namespace are maped in the same array for the same host, no matter which checker is choosed, it will not be able to support the scenario very well. 3. Using read() with O_DIRECT for path_latency can avoid this problem, but can not fix this problem. Respect and regards. -Yang On 2017/7/14 18:45, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 09:47 +0800, Yang Feng wrote: >> Hi Xose, >> >> But tur can not support NVMe device, and if the default checker >> change to ping, >> then it can support NVMe device by a keep alive command and SCSI >> device by a >> tur command. > > I agree with Xose. This is what we have the hwtable for. It's a good > and necessary thing to implement a checker equivalent to TUR for NVME, > but not a reason to remove TUR. SCSI is going to stay for some time to > come. > > As for the path latency checker and your readsector0 function, I don't > quite understand why you are using SG_IO at all. Why can't you just > read() with O_DIRECT? > > Saying that without having had the time for a deeper review of your > patch. > > Martin > -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
