On Fri, Jan 05 2007, Douglas Gilbert wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 04 2007, James Bottomley wrote: > >> On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 12:21 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>> I guess it's fully up to you how you want to solve it. The scheme seems > >>> a little elaborate, but these error conditions are unlikely to ever been > >>> seen in the wild, so no objections from me. > >> Actually, there's already a DID_ code that does what you want. Instead > >> of DID_ERROR, which will retry immediately, there's DID_REQUEUE which > >> will halt the device queue and wait for a returning command to retry. > > > > As long as it keeps firing the queue at some intervals even without any > > commands pending at all, then that'll work just fine. I like that > > approach a lot better than coding the error into some sense value that > > is (at best) some vague approximation of what has happened (calling > > memory shortage a transport error is a bit of a stretch). > > True, but both happen. The scsi_debug driver is a > virtual host, virtual target and a lu (ram disk). > The failure that you pointed out stopped a response > being built. In the real world that would in the > target or lu. The point is that the condition need not be exposed, even if it could be compared to (say) a device busy condition. Both should just results in a requeue and later retry, when resources are available to satisfy the request. Your revised patch looks good to me! -- Jens Axboe - 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
