On 04/15/2013 05:33 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2013-04-15 at 16:55 -0500, Brian King wrote: >> On 04/15/2013 03:45 PM, James Bottomley wrote: >>> On Mon, 2013-04-15 at 13:39 -0500, wenxiong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> In scsi_send_eh_cmnd(), this fix will check the return code of queuecomamnd >>>> when sending commands and retry for a bit if the driver returns a >>>> busy response. >>> >>> This is already handled by the timeout, I think. If a driver >>> continuously returns MLQUEUE BUSY, then we'll fail the request after the >>> timeout on the command expires. >> >> If we get a timeout in scsi_send_eh_cmnd we call scsi_abort_eh_cmnd. If the >> abort works, we return FAILED out of scsi_send_eh_cmnd, which results in >> no retry being performed, since scsi_eh_tur only retries once and >> only if NEEDS_RETRY is returned. Or am I missing something? > > Sorry, I'm not being clear. It comes with being at a conference. What > I mean is that if you do this, the criterion for success or failure > should be the amount of time left not the number of retries. This is > what the non-eh submission path also does for retries of events that > don't count against the retry limit ... so something like this patch > (uncompiled and untested #include stddisclaimer.h) Jams, Wendy and I discussed this a bit more and I think we understand your concern. Wendy is working on an updated patch. Thanks, 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
