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. > Completion-or-timeout has none of these attributes. > > Any alternative is forced to deal with two very different command, and > EH, states... to achieve the same eventual result. Thus, the code > presented is the one of least complexity, AFAICS. James - : 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
