* RE: [PATCH] Another fix for suspend i/o - validate dev statebefore transition
@ 2004-12-11 12:12 James.Smart
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: James.Smart @ 2004-12-11 12:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James.Bottomley; +Cc: linux-scsi
> If the only problem with the current scheme is the somewhat scary
> verbosity then we can shut it up by making the message part of the
> logging infrastructure.
It is, and the suggested patch is fine.
Thanks.
-- James
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] Another fix for suspend i/o - validate dev statebefore transition
@ 2004-12-11 12:57 James.Smart
2004-12-11 13:39 ` James Bottomley
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: James.Smart @ 2004-12-11 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James.Smart, James.Bottomley; +Cc: linux-scsi
Upon further reflection... perhaps I was too hasty agreeing with the change.
It certainly solve my issue. However, what it means is that it may actually hide reports of other invalid state transitions that may be meaningful. Do we want to hide these too ? If not, than I think the original patch best solves the problem. Your call...
-- james s
> > If the only problem with the current scheme is the somewhat scary
> > verbosity then we can shut it up by making the message part of the
> > logging infrastructure.
>
> It is, and the suggested patch is fine.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] Another fix for suspend i/o - validate dev statebefore transition
2004-12-11 12:57 [PATCH] Another fix for suspend i/o - validate dev statebefore transition James.Smart
@ 2004-12-11 13:39 ` James Bottomley
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: James Bottomley @ 2004-12-11 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James.Smart; +Cc: SCSI Mailing List
On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 07:57 -0500, James.Smart@Emulex.Com wrote:
> Upon further reflection... perhaps I was too hasty agreeing with the change.
>
> It certainly solve my issue. However, what it means is that it may actually hide reports of other invalid state transitions that may be meaningful. Do we want to hide these too ? If not, than I think the original patch best solves the problem. Your call...
Well, that's what worried me when I first implemented the state model,
which is why the message is there. However, there haven't actually been
any bug reports where it did anything other than cause problems. If
there's really a transition we should be warning about failure on, we
can do it by printing an error on the failure return from
scsi_device_set_state().
James
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-12-11 13:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-12-11 12:57 [PATCH] Another fix for suspend i/o - validate dev statebefore transition James.Smart
2004-12-11 13:39 ` James Bottomley
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-12-11 12:12 James.Smart
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).