[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CE3A7E9.3010009@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:01:13 +0100
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: remove unlock+relock cycle in ata_scsi_queuecmd
Hello, Jeff, Linus.
On 11/17/2010 09:08 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Looking solely at the SCSI code (ie. ignoring LLD code), it seems
> like the magic number zero for serial_number is signaling a boolean
> condition "are we an EH command?"
>
> EH tests this at the very beginning of the abort/reset/explode error
> handling sequence, presumably to avoid recursive EH invocations
> (scsi_try_to_abort_cmd).
>
> So maybe an EH expert (Tejun?) can correct me here, but I think we
> may be able to completely the lock/get-serial/unlock sequence from
> libata, as long as scsi_init_cmd_errh() reliably sets an "I am an EH
> command" flag.
>
> Would be nice if true...
Yeah, it's actually nice (for once). libata doesn't use or care about
scmd->serial_number at all. The SCSI EH path you mentioned above is
not applicable as libata implements its eh_strategy_handler and SCSI
only calls scsi_try_to_abort_cmd() for the default EH handler,
scsi_unjam_host().
We'll need to test a bit to make sure everything is okay but I'm
fairly certain removing it won't break anything fundamental. If
something breaks at all, it would be some silly easy-to-fix thing.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists