Re: Incorrect response to SK/ASC/ASCQ = x 02/04/01 (becoming ready)

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>]

On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 22:54, Jeremy Higdon wrote:
> I believe that 02/04/01 should be treated like a Busy status.  The
> semantics are slightly different, but the action taken by the
> initiator is the same: wait a bit and then retry.

Well, that's dangerous.  BUSY is assumed always to be a transient
condition, so it doesn't count against the retries, so if this thing
never comes back, we'd loop forever there.

The other thing about BUSY handling is that, for a device with no
outstanding commands like this, we retry based on I/O pressure, so even
if I increment the retry count time waited would depend on how much I/O
pressure the system had.

> I have seen this key/asc/asq before and had to handle it that way.
> I believe the device in question was a disk drive that had been
> powered on recently.  Disks set to have a variable spinup delay
> (based on ID, so that not all disks in a 16-drive box power up at
> the same time and overstress a power supply) can return this code
> up to a couple of minutes after power on.

But that's a start of day thing, which would be handled by sd's TUR
code.

James