Re: [PATCH] libata error handling fixes (ATAPI)

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz]

On 11/16/05, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > > which of course didn't work, so it was changed to the above which then
> > > > broke the assumption of what type of requests we expect to see in
> > > > ide_softirq_done(). We can't generically handle this case, so it's
> > > > probably best to just add this logic to __ide_end_request() - it's just
> > > > another case for _not_ using the blk_complete_request() path, just like
> > > > the partial case.
> > >
> > > Sounds better but I honestly think that you simply cannot obtain
> > > reliable nr_sectors to complete for FS/PC requests just from the
> > > request type.  Two examples are: failed disk flush requests and
> > > cd noretry requests (both are of FS type).
> >
> > first example is bad :-)
>
> Both your examples are wrong - a flush request is non-fs/pc, and noretry
> requests doesn't impact the type of the request at from this POV.

I meant doing partial completions of the real request from the
->end_flush() and noretry doesn't impact the type but it does
impact the nr_sectors to complete.  However none of these
matters any longer with your latest patch which simplifies things
a lot.

> > > IMO the best way to fix it is to actually move more (not less!) of
> > > the logic from driver->end_request() paths to ide_softirq_done().
> >
> > Your latest patch is also a good way to fix it
> > (now the only thing left is rq->errors/rq->retries discussed earlier).
>
> Yeah, that is still pending... I updated the patch series so it's a
> clean 1-2-3-4 step series now, there instead of this little additions.

Excellent!

Bartlomiej
-
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/