From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: Mid-layer handling of NOT_READY conditions... Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:44:41 -0600 Message-ID: <1107017081.4535.29.camel@mulgrave> References: <1106954650.9862.61.camel@plap> <1106977566.9862.102.camel@plap> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from stat16.steeleye.com ([209.192.50.48]:23530 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261301AbVA2QpC (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:45:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1106977566.9862.102.camel@plap> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Vasquez Cc: SCSI Mailing List On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 21:46 -0800, Andrew Vasquez wrote: > Returning back DID_IMM_RETRY for these 'transport' related conditions > would of course help in this issue -- but at the same time bring with it > several side-effects which may not be desirable. > > So, beyond this particular circumstance, what would be considered a > 'proper' return status for this type of event? Well, the correct return, since this is a condition from the storage, is simply the check condition and the sense code (rather than having the driver interpret it). > > Would this be an approach to consider? Or should we tackle the problem > > by addressing the quirky (cmd->retries > cmd->allowed) state? That's what I think the correct approach should be....we have a few other quirky devices that aren't pleased with our current NOT_READY handling. Were you going to look into coding up a patch for this? James