On 08/19/05 01:40, Tejun Heo wrote: > I genearally agree that the events are somewhat standard for block > devices but IMHO SCSI EH also has fair amount SCSI-specific assumptions > and ATA is a bit too different from SCSI to fit cleanly into it. For > example, when handling NCQ errors, the whole task set is aborted and the > status is retrieved with read log page. This can be worked around in > one of the hooks and emulate SCSI behavior, but it just doesn't really > fit well. And I think that recovering via translation layer is a bit > too much translation. > > So, my thought is that SCSI EH assumptions are a bit too specific to > be used as standard for block devices. Ok, so everyone seems to agree on this. > It's true that we must do SCSI specific tasks inside libata if we use > eh_strategy_handler but I don't think switching to fine-grained EH will > reduce the amount of SCSI-specific things inside libata. I think as > long as we can insulate LLDD's from SCSI layer, either way should be > okay later. True, this is the goal. Separation between device management and how that device got to you, is the future and should be the a goal. > I agree that being the only user does incur difficulties, but my very > subjective feeling is that the original libata EH implementation was > just a bit too fragile to start with. eg. not grabbing host lock on EH > entrance causing command completion vs. EH handling race and handling > errors in several different ways. > > Heh... Maybe I'm just reluctant to let go of my patches. Anyways, > I'll now stand down and see how things go and try to help. Please don't do that. One thing everyone in the Linux community knows is that Linux-SCSI needs fresh minds and fresh ideas. Especially from knowlegable folks in the storage protocols and standards. Luben - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
