On 10/26/2016 11:15 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Wed, 2016-10-26 at 08:52 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: >> On Wed, 2016-10-26 at 08:42 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>> Can you elaborate on this? Since the sense buffer is available in >>> scsi_io_completion() and since that function already calls >>> scsi_command_normalize_sense() this function seems like a good >>> candidate to me to add retry logic for REQ_TYPE_BLOCK_PC requests. >> >> UAs are used to signal AENs to userspace control processes that use >> BLOCK_PC, like CD changers, burners and scanners. If we eat UAs >> inside scsi_io_completion(), we could potentially break any userspace >> control system that relies on AENs. > > Ignoring the SCSI error handler, the call sequence for reporting UAs to > user space is as follows: scsi_softirq_done() -> > scsi_decide_disposition() -> scsi_check_sense() -> scsi_report_sense(). > This means that scsi_report_sense() is called before > scsi_io_completion() is called. I think this means that what > scsi_io_completion() decides cannot affect UA reporting to user space? I think what would break if we just started eating UAs in scsi_io_completion for BLOCK_PC is applications that are building BLOCK_PC requests and then checking the sense data in the completed command for a UA. I think this is what James was referring to. If we wanted to collapse some of this retry logic, it seems like we might need a way to differentiate between different types of BLOCK_PC requests. A new cmd_flag on struct request, or more generally, a way for scsi or any user of struct request to pass driver specific data along with the request. This is something I've wanted for ipr, which I've sort of worked around currently. -Brian -- Brian King Power Linux I/O IBM Linux Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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
