lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] training mpath to discern between SCSI errors
Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> 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.
>
Ok, can do.
And looking a the error numbers again, maybe we should be using 'EREMOTEIO'
for non-retryable failures.

So we would be ending with:

ENOLINK: transport failure
EIO: retryable remote failure
EREMOTEIO: non-retryable remote failure

Does that look okay?

Cheers,

Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-08-30 14:41    [W:0.308 / U:0.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site