linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi_execute_async() should add to the tail of the queue

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1166522613.3365.1198.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date:	Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:03:33 +0100
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...rus.demon.nl>
To:	Dan Aloni <da-x@...atomic.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi_execute_async() should add to the tail of the
	queue

On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 10:35 +0200, Dan Aloni wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> scsi_execute_async() has replaced scsi_do_req() a few versions ago, 
> but it also incurred a change of behavior. I noticed that over-queuing 
> a SCSI device using that function causes I/Os to be starved from 
> low-level queuing for no justified reason.
>  
> I think it makes much more sense to perserve the original behaviour 
> of scsi_do_req() and add the request to the tail of the queue.

Hi,

some things should really be added to the head of the queue, like
maintenance requests and error handling requests. Are you sure this is
the right change? At least I'd expect 2 apis, one for a head and one for
a "normal" queueing...

Greetings,
   Arjan van de Ven
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/