James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 12:06 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Sigh. They clearly do not have the same effect, because the above code
guarantees that a timeout is forced, regardless of whether the timer has
fired or not. That in turn guarantees that the timeout callback
(->eh_timed_out) is called, and the cmd is in a very specific state.
the API claims to be forcibly aborting a command, which is *not* a
timeout ... trying to pretend to the midlayer that it is is the wrong
processing model. You may choose to call this API because of a class
internal timeout, but you don't need the callback notification that it
is a timeout in this case, you already know it is.
I can certainly agree the name may not be the best choice. Naming based
on implementation, it could be scsi_force_timeout_cmd() or somesuch.
Jeff
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
