![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Jens Axboe wrote: > Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of the need for the above code... If every qc > was tied to a SCSI command, we could just ask for a later requeue of the > request as is currently done with NCQ commands. Alternatively, we could > add an internal libata qc queue for postponing these commands. That > would take a little effort, as the sync errors reported by > ata_qc_issue() would then be need to signalled async through the > completion callback instead. > > Jeff, what do you think? Just use the SCSI layer for requeueing. That's what I intended. Every qc that matters can be requeued. Just don't worry about non-queued, non-fast-path commands. They are typically used in functions that will immediately notice a failure, and handle it accordingly. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-05-27 09:02 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||