Re: [PATCH v3 02/18] block: introduce BLK_STS_DURATION_LIMIT

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 1/25/23 04:59, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 11:29:10AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 1/24/23 11:02, Niklas Cassel wrote:
>>> Introduce the new block IO status BLK_STS_DURATION_LIMIT for LLDDs to
>>> report command that failed due to a command duration limit being
>>> exceeded. This new status is mapped to the ETIME error code to allow
>>> users to differentiate "soft" duration limit failures from other more
>>> serious hardware related errors.
>>
>> What makes exceeding the duration limit different from an I/O timeout
>> (BLK_STS_TIMEOUT)? Why is it important to tell the difference between an I/O
>> timeout and exceeding the command duration limit?
> 
> BLK_STS_TIMEOUT should be used if the target device doesn't provide any
> response to the command. The DURATION_LIMIT status is used when the device
> completes a command with that status.

Yes, exactly :)


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux