Subject: Re: scsipi changes
To: Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>
From: Matthew Jacob <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/17/2001 09:58:41
> > > > selection timeout is.
> > >
> > > I can't see why, sorry. Can you give an example of why selection timeout
> > > should be handled differently for 2 different type of device ?
> > Different access methods:
> > Method 1: SCSI Scanner- just single shot stuff, assumed a non-critical
> > application, just return ENXIO to app. End of story.
> > Method 2: SCSI Disk- delay and retry.
> > It's possible that these are the wrong places for such policy. It might
> > should be the case that the applications or the kernel caller should decide
> > what to do. However, from a pragmatic point of view neither applications or
> > kernel subsystems are typically written robustly enough to figure out quite
> > what to do with such information.
> Well, it the example above, it wouldn't hurt to use policy #2 for both
> devices :)
> This is my problem: I can't see why a policy acceptable for "important" device
> (disks or tape) wouldn't be good for other devices too.
The scanner application likely is designed to put up a message panel saying
"'ere? Wot's this? Where did me scanner go?". The swapper application on the
disk that has gone away will just panic the system.
I dunno- this thinking is all getting a little fuzzy- my specialty!-
Let's move with what we currently have and see where we are.