[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1348721124.2509.1.camel@dabdike>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:45:24 +0400
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [SCSI PATCH] sd: max-retries becomes configurable
On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 22:20 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >>>>> "James" == James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> writes:
>
> James> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 17:00 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >>
> >> drivers/scsi/sd.c | 4 ++++ drivers/scsi/sd.h | 2 +- 2 files changed,
> >> 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> James> I'm not opposed in principle to doing this (except that it should
> James> be a sysfs parameter like all our other controls),
>
> Now that we're in that department. I never got any feedback on the
> following patch.
>
> Hannes told me in person that he felt the eh_timeout belonged in
> scsi_device and not in the request queue. Whereas I favored making it a
> block layer tunable despite currently only being used by SCSI. Any
> opinions?
request_queue makes more sense to me because there was once a plan to
move all our timeout processing to block. I think it got stalled
somewhere, but this would act as a reminder.
James
--
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