lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Slow tape drive timeout
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Robert Hancock wrote:

> Kai Makisara wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Carlo Nyto wrote:
> >
> > > I am experiencing a two minute timeout open()ing a tape device when
> > > there is no tape in the drive.
> > >
> > > open() with O_NONBLOCK succeeds immediately, however.
> > >
> > This is how open() is supposed to work according to standards (e.g., SUS) if
> > O_NONBLOCK is supported. (Well, actually open() should wait indefinitely but
> > the non-linux systems I tested had a timeout.) The linux st driver was
> > changed to comply with standards at 2.5.3. I.e., the 2.4 kernels did return
> > immediately but the 2.6 kernels have always waited.
> >
...
> Why is accessing the tape drive with no tape in it causing a timeout in the
> first place? I should think that would fail immediately with some "medium not
> present" error from the drive. Unless the drive has no mechanism to detect it,
> but that seems really retarded..
>
It does not seem retarded to me. If a program wants to just wait until the
tape drive becomes ready (e.g., loads the tape), it can use the blocking
open. This is simple. If a program wants to test the status, it uses
non-blocking open. The behavior mandated by the standards provides
alternatives. If O_NONBLOCK is not supported, the user program must
implement the waiting logic if the program just wants to wait until the
drive is ready before starting i/o.

--
Kai


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-03 20:37    [W:0.047 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site