Hello,
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 05:27:06PM -0800, maksim.rayskiy@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> index 7f77c67..0a9d400 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> @@ -4978,6 +4978,14 @@ void ata_qc_issue(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc)
> struct ata_link *link = qc->dev->link;
> u8 prot = qc->tf.protocol;
>
> + if (unlikely(link->eh_info.dev_action[qc->dev->devno] &
> + ATA_EH_VERIFY)) {
> + ata_port_schedule_eh(ap);
> + qc->scsidone(qc->scsicmd);
> + ata_qc_free(qc);
> + return;
Hmm... this is weird. You'll probably want to define a qc flag to
indicate that the command is for verify and then schedule EH from
ata_qc_issue(). That said, I'm not quite sure whether that's any
better than scheduling EH from libata-scsi. It's not like the
boundary is clearly defined. We already play with EH for other stuff
from libata-scsi. Jeff, do you think going through QCFLAG is
important?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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
