On 05/26/14 17:27, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2014-05-26 at 17:15 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
Make it possible to test the REQ_ATOM_COMPLETE bit from outside the
block layer core.
I don't see the value of patches 2,3 they're checking for an impossible
condition ... why might it be
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 09:49:48AM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
I don't see the value of patches 2,3 they're checking for an impossible
condition ... why might it be possible?
When reading the source code in scsi_error.c it's easy to overlook that
scmd_eh_abort_handler(),
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 09:49 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 05/26/14 17:27, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2014-05-26 at 17:15 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
Make it possible to test the REQ_ATOM_COMPLETE bit from outside the
block layer core.
I don't see the value of patches 2,3
On 05/27/14 10:23, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 09:49 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
When reading the source code in scsi_error.c it's easy to overlook that
scmd_eh_abort_handler(), scsi_abort_command() and scsi_eh_scmd_add() are
all invoked for requests in which the
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 11:00 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 05/27/14 10:23, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 09:49 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
When reading the source code in scsi_error.c it's easy to overlook that
scmd_eh_abort_handler(), scsi_abort_command() and
Il 27/05/2014 12:21, James Bottomley ha scritto:
I could also see us one day extending the TMF capability to abort any
running command, which would make even an assertion of block timed out
or completed invalid.
Actually the assertion would remain valid, and that's exactly what Bart
wants to
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 12:47 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 27/05/2014 12:21, James Bottomley ha scritto:
I could also see us one day extending the TMF capability to abort any
running command, which would make even an assertion of block timed out
or completed invalid.
Actually the
Il 27/05/2014 12:59, James Bottomley ha scritto:
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 12:47 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 27/05/2014 12:21, James Bottomley ha scritto:
I could also see us one day extending the TMF capability to abort any
running command, which would make even an assertion of block timed out
Il 27/05/2014 13:26, James Bottomley ha scritto:
You could use a different mechanism than a softirq to tell the abort
were successful, for example by overriding scsi_done. But with respect
to the block layer, the mechanics of avoiding the race and double-free
would probably be the same.
I
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 13:52 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 27/05/2014 13:26, James Bottomley ha scritto:
You could use a different mechanism than a softirq to tell the abort
were successful, for example by overriding scsi_done. But with respect
to the block layer, the mechanics of avoiding
Make it possible to test the REQ_ATOM_COMPLETE bit from outside the
block layer core.
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche bvanass...@acm.org
Cc: Jens Axboe ax...@fb.com
Cc: Hannes Reinecke h...@suse.de
Cc: Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com
Cc: Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org
Cc: Joe Lawrence
On 05/26/2014 05:15 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
Make it possible to test the REQ_ATOM_COMPLETE bit from outside the
block layer core.
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche bvanass...@acm.org
Cc: Jens Axboe ax...@fb.com
Cc: Hannes Reinecke h...@suse.de
Cc: Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com
Cc: Christoph
12 matches
Mail list logo
