On 1/22/24 09:47, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 at 22:33, Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 11/30/23 17:25, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:01:33PM -0800, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_blk.h b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_blk.h
>>>> index 3744e4da1b2a..ed864195ab26 100644
>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_blk.h
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_blk.h
>>>> @@ -317,6 +317,7 @@ struct virtio_scsi_inhdr {
>>>> #define VIRTIO_BLK_S_OK 0
>>>> #define VIRTIO_BLK_S_IOERR 1
>>>> #define VIRTIO_BLK_S_UNSUPP 2
>>>> +#define VIRTIO_BLK_S_TIMEOUT 3
>>> The structs and constants in this header file come from the VIRTIO
>>> specification. Anything changed in this file must first be accepted into
>>> the VIRTIO spec because this is the hardware interface definition.
>>>
>>> VIRTIO_BLK_S_TIMEOUT seems to be synthetic value that is purely used by
>>> software, not the device. Maybe there is no need to update the spec.
>>> Just avoid using in_hdr.status to signal timeouts and use a separate
>>> flag/field instead in a block layer or virtio_blk driver request struct.
>> It is a specific error hence I've added that on the similar lines,
>> do you have a specific field in mind that you would prefer ?
> I didn't have a specific flag or field in mind, but it's probably no
> longer necessary in v2 because the code needs to wait for the device
> to complete the request anyway.
>
> Stefan
will send the V2 soon, thanks ...
-ck
