Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] pvSCSI: Sanity check for REPORT_LUN emul

Hi Steven-san,

Sorry for delay.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:58:41 +0100
Steven Smith <steven.smith@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > I will attach a patch in order to provide following.
> > 
> > - Sanity check for REPORT_LUN emulation.
> Thank you, that's much better.
> 
> I have one slight issue with the new approach: if a REPORT_LUNS
> command races with a LUN hot-add on the backend, you tell the frontend
> that the command failed.  Might it be better to instead retry the
> command on the backend?
> 
> It's pretty unlikely that anyone would actually hit this race, and the
> current behaviour isn't completely unreasonable, but it seems like
> retrying in the backend would be a bit more robust.  What do you
> think?

Yes, I consider retrying is a right way, because we can expect few 
times retrying will certainly succeed in this case.
I will attach a patch with the number of retry is three. How do you
think three times retry is appropriate?

Best regards,


-----
Jun Kamada

linux_pvscsi_add_retry_REPORTLUN.patch
Description: Binary data

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread>

Previous by Date:

RE: [Xen-devel] Re: PROBLEM: Xen ballon driver seems to be broken in 2.6.26, Dan Magenheimer

Next by Date:

RE: Xen system skew MUCH worse than tsc skew (was RE: [Xen-devel]RE: [PATCH] record max stime skew (was RE: [PATCH] strictly increasinghvm guest time)), Dan Magenheimer

Previous by Thread:

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] pvSCSI: Sanity check for REPORT_LUN emulation, Steven Smith

Next by Thread:

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] pvSCSI: Sanity check for REPORT_LUN emulation, Steven Smith

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]