Messages in this thread | | | From | KY Srinivasan <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 1/1] [SCSI] Fix a bug in deriving the FLUSH_TIMEOUT from the basic I/O timeout | Date | Fri, 18 Jul 2014 17:05:45 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: James Bottomley [mailto:jbottomley@parallels.com] > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 9:57 AM > To: KY Srinivasan > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; hch@infradead.org; apw@canonical.com; > devel@linuxdriverproject.org; michaelc@cs.wisc.edu; axboe@kernel.dk; > linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; ohering@suse.com; > gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; jasowang@redhat.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@infradead.org) > > > [mailto:hch@infradead.org] > > > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 8:11 AM > > > To: KY Srinivasan > > > Cc: Jens Axboe; James Bottomley; michaelc@cs.wisc.edu; Christoph > > > Hellwig (hch@infradead.org); linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; > > > gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; jasowang@redhat.com; linux- > > > kernel@vger.kernel.org; ohering@suse.com; apw@canonical.com; > > > devel@linuxdriverproject.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.
You are right; sorry about that. I think my version is better since we do want to base the flush timeout relative to the basic timeout.
K. Y > > James
| |