Hi Alexander, > On Apr 2, 2019, at 07:46, Alexander Motin <m...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Author: mav > Date: Tue Apr 2 14:46:10 2019 > New Revision: 345805 > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/345805 > > Log: > Unify SCSI_STATUS_BUSY retry handling with other cases. > > - Do not retry if periph was invalidated. > - Do not decrement retry_count if already zero. > - Report action_string when applicable. > > MFC after: 2 weeks > > Modified: > head/sys/cam/cam_periph.c > > Modified: head/sys/cam/cam_periph.c > ============================================================================== > --- head/sys/cam/cam_periph.c Tue Apr 2 14:01:03 2019 (r345804) > +++ head/sys/cam/cam_periph.c Tue Apr 2 14:46:10 2019 (r345805) > @@ -1513,6 +1513,7 @@ camperiphscsistatuserror(union ccb *ccb, union ccb **o > int *openings, u_int32_t *relsim_flags, > u_int32_t *timeout, u_int32_t *action, const char **action_string) > { > + struct cam_periph *periph; > int error; > > switch (ccb->csio.scsi_status) { > @@ -1595,14 +1596,21 @@ camperiphscsistatuserror(union ccb *ccb, union ccb **o > * Restart the queue after either another > * command completes or a 1 second timeout. > */ > - if ((sense_flags & SF_RETRY_BUSY) != 0 || > - (ccb->ccb_h.retry_count--) > 0) { > + periph = xpt_path_periph(ccb->ccb_h.path); > + if (periph->flags & CAM_PERIPH_INVALID) {
Is there a reason why this style is inconsistent with the other part of the change by not explicitly testing for “!= 0”? Thanks! -Enji _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
