[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:0.152 / U:0.900 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site