linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/18] scsi: scsi_error: Introduce new error handle mechanism

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: <d0566ed5-34df-412a-82ff-29d56d499abb@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Sep 2023 10:56:01 -0500
From:   Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>
To:     "haowenchao (C)" <haowenchao2@...wei.com>,
        "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        louhongxiang@...wei.com, lixiaokeng@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/18] scsi: scsi_error: Introduce new error handle
 mechanism

On 9/6/23 6:15 AM, haowenchao (C) wrote:
>>
>> If the driver supports performing multiple TMFs/resets in parallel then why
>> not always enable it?
>>
> 
> Not all hardware/drivers support performing multiple TMFs/resets in parallel,
> so I think it is necessary to call scsi_device_setup_eh/scsi_device_clear_eh
> in specific drivers.

Ah shoot sorry. I edited my email before I sent it and dropped part of it.

For the scsi_device_setup_eh/scsi_device_clear_eh comment I just meant it could
be a scsi_host_template field. scsi-ml would then see it and do the
scsi_device_setup_eh/scsi_device_clear_eh calls for the driver. The drivers
then don't have to deal with doing slave callouts and handling errors.

Also for the error handling case I think we want to still proceed if
scsi_device_setup_eh fails. Just use the old EH in that case.