From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: james.smart@broadcom.com (James Smart)
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 11:04:47 -0700
Subject: [PATCHv3 1/9] nvme: Sync request queues on reset
In-Reply-To: <20180525162439.GT11037@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20180524203500.14081-1-keith.busch@intel.com>
 <20180524203500.14081-2-keith.busch@intel.com>
 <20180525124209.GD23463@lst.de>
 <20180525142233.GN11037@localhost.localdomain>
 <20180525143253.GA26539@lst.de>
 <96a98ecf-9b35-1f4f-da20-3729d7a2de68@broadcom.com>
 <20180525162439.GT11037@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <7f88c98a-652f-4a82-0f0b-feb36fe46bb0@broadcom.com>



On 5/25/2018 9:24 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
>
> At least in the current blk-mq timeout handling, returning RESET_TIMER
> presents other challenges for the reset handler: the timer may have
> reclaimed the request that reset_work is trying to complete.

why would that be true if BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER was returned ?

-- james