On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:24 -0800, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> NEEDS_RETRY _does_ terminate, after it exhausts the retries. But since
> by the ASC value we know that no amount of retries is going to work,
> this chunk of the patch resolves it quicker, i.e. eliminates the
> "NEEDS_RETRY" pointless retries (given the SK/ASC combination).
I agree that it's useful behaviour. However, the change header should
be something like "scsi_error: don't retry for unrecoverable medium
errors" not "infinite retries .."
> > > - if (scsi_end_request(cmd, 1, good_bytes, result == 0) == NULL)
> > > + if (good_bytes &&
> > > + scsi_end_request(cmd, 1, good_bytes, result == 0) == NULL)
> > > return;
> >
> > What exactly is this supposed to be doing? its result is identical to
> > the code it's replacing (because of the way scsi_end_request() processes
> > its second argument), so it can't have any effect on the stated problem.
>
> I suppose this is true, but I'd rather it not even go in
> scsi_end_request as (cmd, uptodate=1, good_bytes=0, retry=0) and complete
> at the bottom as (cmd, uptodate=0, total_xfer, retry=0).
But, logically, this isn't part of the change set ... the behaviour
you're altering is unrelated to the change set details, so this piece
shouldn't be in.
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
