> -----Original Message----- > From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, 15 October, 2014 8:26 AM ... > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:42:26PM -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote: > > I don't mind if you change it. However I plan to release > > sg3_utils-1.40 in the next 2 or 3 weeks, so that would > > be the earliest a revised sg_reset would be available for > > distros. Improving error reports is something I always > > like to do (so ENODEV for the "in progress" case seems a > > bit strident). > > If sg_utils needs any changes for a different ENODEV we shouldn't > bother - breaking backwards compatibility is a bad idea. None of the values will cause the current version of sg_reset to retry the request. Maybe -EBUSY should be returned, and interpreted that way by future versions of sg_reset? > -----Original Message----- > From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, 13 October, 2014 5:24 AM ... > Both the existing code and my new code still serialize > eh_*_reset_handler callers using the crude tmf_in_progress flag. Using > a proper lock for it would seem preferable to me, as would be bouncing > the work for SG_SCSI_RESET to the EH thread. Eliminating serialization would be better, though. Devices should be independent, so bus device resets (that are not escalated) should also be independent. -- 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
