Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:38:25 -0800 (PST) From: mjacob@freebsd.org To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/cam/scsi scsi_da.c Message-ID: <20070202123728.C36488@ns1.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <45C3860C.3000206@root.org> References: <20070123173026.E692416A4CD@hub.freebsd.org> <45B65710.4060607@root.org> <20070123105009.G41619@ns1.feral.com> <45B67401.9070102@samsco.org> <20070201150111.B77236@ns1.feral.com> <45C27965.1010803@samsco.org> <45C2E7DB.30204@root.org> <20070202080329.L17850@ns1.feral.com> <45C3860C.3000206@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> As long as it's specific to a known external device (USB), and the user knows > that running some command (device_eject umass0) will make sure it's safe, I'm > ok. Mmm. >>> From a silly semantic point of view to get around this, we should still >> support and require SYNC_CACHE on close except where devices don't support >> it (and any device that hangs on a SYNC_CACHE doesn't support it- period). >> On detach, devices that still need to have data commited via an opcode that >> looks remarkably like SYNC_CACHE can and should have that happen- with all >> the infrastructure changes that go along with allowing devices to be >> detached (w/o complaint) with a live command. >> >> Or have I missed something it what you're suggesting? > > Actually, that's a different idea I had where you set a timeout() before > running SYNC_CACHE, then cancel the command if it hangs. Not sure how to > implement the idea of a cancellable device call but maybe by creating a > temporary thread? Why not just quiet SYNC_CACHE timeouts? -matt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070202123728.C36488>