[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C7B9F14.9080900@mvista.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:07:48 +0400
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...sta.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
CC: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
michaelc@...wisc.edu, James.Bottomley@...e.de, tytso@....edu,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, jaxboe@...ionio.com, jack@...e.cz,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, swhiteho@...hat.com,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
konishi.ryusuke@....ntt.co.jp, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
vst@...b.net, rwheeler@...hat.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
chris.mason@...cle.com, dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] training mpath to discern between SCSI errors
Hello.
Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> Actually, I think we have two separate issues here:
> 1) The need of having more detailed I/O errors even in the fs layer. This
> we've already discussed at the LSF, consensus here is to allow other
> errors than just 'EIO'.
> Instead of Mike's approach I would rather use existing error codes here;
> this will make the transition somewhat easier.
> Initially I would propose to return 'ENOLINK' for a transport failure,
> 'EIO' for a non-retryable failure on the target, and 'ENODEV' for a
> retryable failure on the target.
Are you sure it's not vice versa: EIO for retryable and ENODEV for
non-retryable failures. ENODEV looks more like permanent condition to me.
WBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists