[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1405702633.30262.3.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:57:13 +0000
From: James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>
To: "kys@...rosoft.com" <kys@...rosoft.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
"apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>,
"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
"michaelc@...wisc.edu" <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"ohering@...e.com" <ohering@...e.com>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [SCSI] Fix a bug in deriving the FLUSH_TIMEOUT from
the basic I/O timeout
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 16:44 +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christoph Hellwig (hch@...radead.org) [mailto:hch@...radead.org]
> > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 8:11 AM
> > To: KY Srinivasan
> > Cc: Jens Axboe; James Bottomley; michaelc@...wisc.edu; Christoph Hellwig
> > (hch@...radead.org); linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org;
> > gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; jasowang@...hat.com; linux-
> > kernel@...r.kernel.org; ohering@...e.com; apw@...onical.com;
> > devel@...uxdriverproject.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [SCSI] Fix a bug in deriving the FLUSH_TIMEOUT
> > from the basic I/O timeout
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53:33PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> > > I still see this problem. There was talk of fixing it elsewhere.
> >
> > Well, what we have right not is entirely broken, given that the block layer
> > doesn't initialize ->timeout on TYPE_FS requeuests.
> >
> > We either need to revert that initial commit or apply something like the
> > attached patch as a quick fix.
> I had sent this exact patch sometime back:
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg75385.html
Actually, no you didn't. The difference is in the derivation of the
timeout. Christoph's patch is absolute in terms of SD_TIMEOUT; yours is
relative to the queue timeout setting ... I thought there was a reason
for preferring the relative version.
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