On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Matthias Andree wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Kurt Garloff wrote:
>
> > BTW, I have a Am53c974 (tmscsim), a sym53c875 and a TRM-S1040 (dc395x_trm)
> > on a SCSI bus and never managed to start a reset war, despite manually
> > resetting the bus quite often.
>
> Uh. Two of these drivers happen to be maintained by you ;-)
>
> > However, the SCSI subsystem should get some memory. If there are a like two
> > consecutive bus resets caused by the same device, it should be just taken
> > offline.
>
> In that respect, we would require forced unmount as well, would not we?
> If I take e. g. a faulty disk drive off-line, say, with a file system
> that is not necessary for the system (say, an incoming FTP directory),
> this could bring the system down with load rising and D processes all
> over the place anyways (I experienced this).
The new eh-strategy takes a device offline, if all resets did not cure the
failed device. I do not think that a fourced unmount happens. sd.c simply
blocks further access (-ENODEV) , doesn't it?
Regards
Martin Peschke
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
