On Monday, May 22, 2006 12:41 PM, Michael Reed wrote: > > I doubt there would be regressions. We would need to > implement timeout > > on not receiving a mf, then return EAGAIN as we do today. > > Then is there a reason to implement the change at all? If the caller > can still receive EAGAIN, the caller still has to handle it. > Or just view it as an opaque error as callers do today. > Callers of mpt_config don't care about EAGAIN. Some return the return value up the calling stack, however ends with them evaulating a non-zero value as a error, not as retry me later. So my suggestion of returning EGAIN after waiting on mf's to be available, really doesn't matter, in regards to regressions. I will not have time the next three weeks to address this, as I will be on the road. I prefer mpt_config to be fixed, however I understand your concerns, as far as testing and timing goes. Eric - : 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
