lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Playing with SATA NCQ
On Fri, May 27 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 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.

Yep, that is what I'm doing for SCSI originated commands.

> 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.

So the current wait-around stuff is ok with you?

--
Jens Axboe

-
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 09:23    [W:0.070 / U:0.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site