From owner-freebsd-scsi  Sun Apr 29 16:24:36 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org
Received: from panzer.kdm.org (panzer.kdm.org [216.160.178.169])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA14A37B424
	for <freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 16:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ken@panzer.kdm.org)
Received: (from ken@localhost)
	by panzer.kdm.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id RAA41926;
	Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:24:26 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from ken)
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:24:26 -0600
From: "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@kdm.org>
To: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de>
Cc: freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Another problem with the new CAM error handling
Message-ID: <20010429172426.B41838@panzer.kdm.org>
References: <20010426110542.A50185@uriah.heep.sax.de> <200104261435.f3QEZLs23573@aslan.scsiguy.com> <20010426190714.E50185@uriah.heep.sax.de> <20010428231227.A37369@panzer.kdm.org> <20010429185353.C50185@uriah.heep.sax.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <20010429185353.C50185@uriah.heep.sax.de>; from j@uriah.heep.sax.de on Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 06:53:53PM +0200
Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 18:53:53 +0200, J Wunsch wrote:
> As Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
> 
> > The old code retried unit attentions unconditionally without decrementing
> > the retry count if SF_RETRY_UA was set.  If SF_RETRY_UA wasn't set, it
> > would still retry unit attentions, but would decrement the retry count.
> 
> Ah, yes, that would explain it.  Thanks for the analyzation, i didn't
> get a grip about it when looking at the code.
> 
> > The attached patch should fix your problem.
> 
> OK, i'll test that.

Thanks.

> > A better name might be 'camcontrol detach'.  You're right, such an option
> > might help with reviving dead peripherals.  Hopefully we can make things
> > robust enough so that a peripheral isn't declared "dead" unless it really
> > is dead.
> 
> I think there's always a chance that something is being misdetected as
> `dead' when you can actually revive it somehow.  Would it be much work
> to implement a "camcontrol detach"?  Also, i'd like to prefer that
> over issuing a bus reset in case a temporarily added SCSI device is
> being manually removed.

Do you mean "bus rescan" instead of "bus reset"?

I'm not sure how hard it would be to do a 'camcontrol detach'.  I'd have to
think about that a little bit.  It may be as simple as sending an async
notification, but I'm not positive on that.

> > ! 		start_ccb->ccb_h.ccb_state = PT_CCB_BUFFER_IO;
> ...
> > ! 		start_ccb->ccb_h.ccb_state = PT_CCB_BUFFER_IO_UA;
> 
> Well, it's _that_ simple, ain't it? :-)

Yeah, the hooks were already in there. :)

Ken
-- 
Kenneth Merry
ken@kdm.org

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message