* Why are DID_ABORT and TASK_ABORTED handled differently?
@ 2012-07-12 16:49 Paolo Bonzini
2012-07-12 17:09 ` James Bottomley
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2012-07-12 16:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-scsi
Currently, DID_ABORT relays the failure to the upper layer, while TASK
ABORTED (after the suggestion at
http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=121932916906009&w=2 was implemented)
retries the command.
Is it correct that when TAS=0 an aborted task (from TMF, persistent
reservation or anything else) can result in DID_ABORT? There are some
clues of this in the drivers, but on the other hand scsi-debug has a
very strange usage of DID_ABORT:
static const int illegal_condition_result =
(DRIVER_SENSE << 24) | (DID_ABORT << 16) |
SAM_STAT_CHECK_CONDITION;
...
/* DIX + T10 DIF */
if (scsi_debug_dix && scsi_prot_sg_count(SCpnt)) {
int prot_ret = prot_verify_read(SCpnt, lba, num, ei_lba);
if (prot_ret) {
mk_sense_buffer(devip, ABORTED_COMMAND, 0x10,
prot_ret);
return illegal_condition_result;
}
}
If it is the case that they are similar, is there any reason why the two
are handled differently?
Paolo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread* Re: Why are DID_ABORT and TASK_ABORTED handled differently?
2012-07-12 16:49 Why are DID_ABORT and TASK_ABORTED handled differently? Paolo Bonzini
@ 2012-07-12 17:09 ` James Bottomley
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: James Bottomley @ 2012-07-12 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paolo Bonzini; +Cc: linux-scsi
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 18:49 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Currently, DID_ABORT relays the failure to the upper layer, while TASK
> ABORTED (after the suggestion at
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=121932916906009&w=2 was implemented)
> retries the command.
They should be separate things. TASK_ABORTED is a SCSI status code that
should be returned unmolested by the driver. All the DID_ codes are for
host internal errors. DID_ABORT means the host was told to abort the
command ... the implication is it was by the user or some other process,
so it's a hard failure.
> Is it correct that when TAS=0 an aborted task (from TMF, persistent
> reservation or anything else) can result in DID_ABORT? There are some
> clues of this in the drivers, but on the other hand scsi-debug has a
> very strange usage of DID_ABORT:
No. Hosts shouldn't try to interpret status codes, that's what the mid
layer does.
> static const int illegal_condition_result =
> (DRIVER_SENSE << 24) | (DID_ABORT << 16) |
> SAM_STAT_CHECK_CONDITION;
>
> ...
> /* DIX + T10 DIF */
> if (scsi_debug_dix && scsi_prot_sg_count(SCpnt)) {
> int prot_ret = prot_verify_read(SCpnt, lba, num, ei_lba);
>
> if (prot_ret) {
> mk_sense_buffer(devip, ABORTED_COMMAND, 0x10,
> prot_ret);
> return illegal_condition_result;
> }
> }
>
>
> If it is the case that they are similar, is there any reason why the two
> are handled differently?
That looks to be a bug in scsi_debug.
James
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-07-12 17:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-07-12 16:49 Why are DID_ABORT and TASK_ABORTED handled differently? Paolo Bonzini
2012-07-12 17:09 ` James Bottomley
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.