Re: [PATCH] HP SW support take 3

[Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>]

Mike Christie wrote:
> Christophe Varoqui wrote:
> 
>> I confirm a robust behaviour now with take 3.
>> Here is a take 4 that move to an appropriate "best effort mode", ie 
>> always return success.
>>
>> The point is, whenever DM start submitting io the an asleep controler, 
>> precede with a START command. If it fails ... too bad, the consecutive 
>> io will fail and DM will try another PG. Had to do that because take 3 
>> interprets an error where the controler switch have correctly happened.
>>
> 
> ok so is it if the controller is already failed over and we send the 
> START command, rq->errors had some value so I ended up failing the 
> operation, right? Let me send a patch that will dump the sense and 
> rq->errors info out so we can see if there is some nice ASC/ASCQ value 
> that will tell us this occured like with the LSI boxes.

oh wait, when I reread this I guess you are saying that I was always 
gettting a rq->error value when I send a START_STOP and it succeeds?