Alasdair G Kergon <agk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 03:07:33PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > It is expected that this race will be fixed in the near-term so it makes > > little since to remove all associated code. Providing control over the > > call to blk_abort_queue() facilitates continued testing and future > > flexibility to opt-in to lower latency path deactivation. Opting to > > enable this feature will emit a warning for the time being. > > Ah, but then the *feature* keyword - which is only going to be needed > temporarily until it's fixed - becomes a permanent part of the interface... > > If it's broken, let's just disable it (#define-style) until it gets fixed. > (And only if it doesn't get fixed in a reasonable amount of time, remove the > code.) I understand that if its broken that we could #define it out in dm or we could #define the code in blk_abort_queue. I believe the thought was that post addressing the race issue that others may want control. As there maybe cases where the waking up of the error_handler and a extra abort may not be wanted in all cases. -andmike -- Michael Anderson andmike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
