From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: Request for review of Linux iSCSI driver version 4.0.0.1 Date: 03 Dec 2003 11:32:37 -0600 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1070472758.1984.39.camel@mulgrave> References: <03120118001300.08627@naveenb-lnx.cisco.com> <03120217260300.01630@naveenb-lnx.cisco.com> <1070383028.2345.8.camel@mulgrave> <03120319364802.02505@naveenb-lnx.cisco.com> <1070464184.1771.33.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from nat9.steeleye.com ([65.114.3.137]:36615 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262965AbTLCRea (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:34:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Clay Haapala Cc: naveenb@cisco.com, Roman Zippel , hch@infradead.org, SCSI Mailing List , davmyers@cisco.com On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 11:03, Clay Haapala wrote: > James, et al, do the SCSI layers retry on COMMAND ABORT? Not at the moment. We don't have a complex sense processing engine. What we use is in scsi_error.c:scsi_check_sense(), but it's geared towards codes usually returned from everyday devices. If I were you, I'd have the driver return DID_PARITY (or, more simply DID_ERROR, which will cause a (counted) retry. > I don't believe the SCSI layers retry on HARDWARE ERROR -- this is a > difference between how Solaris and Linux operate, for example, unless > I am misunderstanding or have obsolete information. That depends on how the error is signalled, but if we think a retry to be futile, it won't be retried (although there isn't really a DID_ for hardware error that we don't retry). James