[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c858605b-7283-7882-64a8-8d1584274b95@criteo.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 15:43:17 +0000
From: Erwan Velu <e.velu@...teo.com>
To: James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
Erwan Velu <erwanaliasr1@...il.com>,
"elliott@....com" <elliott@....com>
CC: Don Brace <don.brace@...rosemi.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"open list:MICROSEMI SMART ARRAY SMARTPQI DRIVER (smartpqi)"
<esc.storagedev@...rosemi.com>,
"open list:MICROSEMI SMART ARRAY SMARTPQI DRIVER (smartpqi)"
<linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] scsi: smartpqi_init: Reporting 'logical unit failure'
Le 01/03/2019 à 16:26, James Bottomley a écrit :
> [...]
> Shouldn't this be a variant of sdev/scmd_printk? Otherwise it tells
> you what disk in the array terms is the problem but not what device in
> your actual system is affected.
Hey James,
My initial take on that was that pqi_take_device_offline(), which is
called just after, will print the "re-scanning " message with the same
format.
As they will be both printed in the same error context and one after the
other, I though that would make sense to represent the same information
to ease the reading like cause -> consequence.
As the message is about the LUN itself, which is reported faulty, I
though it would worth reporting the info that way.
Shall I consider printing also the disk name in addition ?
Erwan,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists