From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Subject: Re: should the tur libchecker handle unit
	attention	conditions?
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:06:38 +0200
Message-ID: <470DBD6E.8010603@suse.de>
References: <1192031339.4086.37.camel@gator.sc.steeleye.com>
Reply-To: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1192031339.4086.37.camel@gator.sc.steeleye.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel>,
	<mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:dm-devel@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel>,
	<mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com
To: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
List-Id: dm-devel.ids

Eddie Williams wrote:
> I have noticed situations where paths bounce using the tur libchecker
> due to unit attention conditions.  Would there be any objection for
> attempting an automatic single retry in tur.c for a UA condition?
>=20
No, please do. I've run into the same problems with the path_priority
callouts and will have to fix them, too.

Cheers,

Hannes
--=20
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		      zSeries & Storage
hare@suse.de			      +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg
GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG N=FCrnberg)