From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Reinecke Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: Erroneous handling of sense status in SCSI EH commands Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:26:00 +0100 Message-ID: <4D58D908.7070306@suse.de> References: <1295597274-5844-1-git-send-email-hare@suse.de> <1297528206.3026.7.camel@mulgrave.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38976 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751358Ab1BNHRV (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Feb 2011 02:17:21 -0500 Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.2]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE475FC9F for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:17:21 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <1297528206.3026.7.camel@mulgrave.site> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 02/12/2011 05:30 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 09:07 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >> Consider a scenario where a SCSI EH command like TUR fails with a NO= T READY >> status - MANUAL INTERVENTION REQUIRED (02/04/03). As evident in the = ASC/ASCQ >> description, manual intervention is required in this case i.e. the t= arget wants >> TUR to fail here so that the host administrator can take corrective = action. >> >> But this particular ASC/ASCQ is not handled in the scsi_check_sense,= which >> ultimately causes scsi_eh_tur to erroneously report a SUCCESS (devic= e ready) >> instead of the actual FAILURE state (device not ready). >> >> This patch converts scsi_check_sense() to return SOFT_ERROR in >> cases where an error has been signalled via the sense code, but >> we should not wake the error handler. This error code will be >> reverted back to SUCCESS for normal command handling, but >> scsi_eh_completed_normally() will convert it to FAILED. >=20 > I can't reconcile this patch with the detailed error handling ones: y= ou > change a lot of call sites to TARGET_ERROR in that patch and SOFT_ERR= OR > in this one. Since the detailed error handling seems the more > important, I'll drop this one ... can you work out a reconciliation, > please? >=20 Yes. I'm in discussion with NetApp (as the original reporter) about details about this patch anyway. I'll be sending an update. Cheers, Hannes --=20 Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG N=C3=BCrnberg) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html