Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:18:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:18:15 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:4111 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:18:14 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:24:32 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Alan Cox cc: "David S. Miller" , , Christoph Hellwig , Linux Kernel Mailing List , , Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH] NCR53C9x ESP: C99 designated initializers In-Reply-To: <1037019925.2887.21.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1179 Lines: 27 On 11 Nov 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > The stupid thing is we take the lock then call the eh function then drop > it. You can drop the lock, wait and retake it. I need to fix a couple of > other drivers to do a proper wait and in much the same way. Hmm.. I wonder if the thing should disable the queue (plug it) and release the lock before calling reset. I assume we don't want any new requests at this point anyway, and having the low-level drivers know about stopping the queue etc sounds like a bad idea.. Of course, I suspect that it is potentially a bad idea to have the reset functionality at the SCSI level _at_all_. As usual, the higher layers don't really know what is going on, and the lower levels on smarter cards are likely to be doing the right thing on their own, no? (Yes, we should improve the infrastructure for having per-command timeouts etc, but the reset/abort callbacks have always been strange) Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/