Re: [PATCH 1/1] [SCSI] Fix a bug in deriving the FLUSH_TIMEOUT from the basic I/O timeout

From: James Bottomley
Date: Fri Jul 18 2014 - 12:57:20 EST


On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 16:44 +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christoph Hellwig (hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) [mailto:hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 8:11 AM
> > To: KY Srinivasan
> > Cc: Jens Axboe; James Bottomley; michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxx; Christoph Hellwig
> > (hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx); linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ohering@xxxxxxxx; apw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 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.

James

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/