[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <232717d6-fa10-aaec-cd15-8ed5e7e1117e@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 06:43:31 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Martin Kepplinger <martin.kepplinger@...i.sm>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: jejb@...ux.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, kernel@...i.sm,
stern@...land.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] scsi: sd: send REQUEST SENSE for
BLIST_MEDIA_CHANGE devices in runtime_resume()
On 7/2/21 1:04 AM, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, dem 01.07.2021 um 15:49 +0100 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 10:44:52AM +0200, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
>>> + struct scsi_disk *sdkp = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>> + struct scsi_device *sdp = sdkp->device;
>>> + int timeout, res;
>>> +
>>> + timeout = sdp->request_queue->rq_timeout *
>>> SD_FLUSH_TIMEOUT_MULTIPLIER;
>>
>> Is REQUEST SENSE reqlly a so slow operation on these devices that
>> we need to override the timeout?
>
> using SD_TIMEOUT works equally fine for me. Is that what you'd rather
> like to see?
>
> Bart, is SD_TIMEOUT equally ok for you? If so, I'll resend with your
> reviewed-by.
Hi Martin,
I prefer sdp->request_queue->rq_timeout instead of SD_TIMEOUT since the
former is configurable via sysfs.
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists