[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] training mpath to discern between SCSI errors

    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

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-08-30 14:11    [W:0.026 / U:0.864 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site