Re: [RFC] block: fix barrier error transmission

Jens Axboe
2008-04-04T11:49:02Z

On Thu, Apr 03 2008, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 10:06 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 02 2008, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 21:08 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/block/blk-barrier.c b/block/blk-barrier.c
> > > > > index 55c5f1f..3a3947c 100644
> > > > > --- a/block/blk-barrier.c
> > > > > +++ b/block/blk-barrier.c
> > > > > @@ -114,18 +114,24 @@ void blk_ordered_complete_seq(struct request_queue *q, unsigned seq, int error)
> > > > >
> > > > > static void pre_flush_end_io(struct request *rq, int error)
> > > > > {
> > > > > + error = rq->errors ? -EIO : error;
> > > > > +
> > > > > elv_completed_request(rq->q, rq);
> > > > > blk_ordered_complete_seq(rq->q, QUEUE_ORDSEQ_PREFLUSH, error);
> > > > > }
> > > >
> > > > It's a bit of a hack, SCSI really should pass the error value back
> > > > instead of fiddling around with possibly perhaps finding it in ->errors.
> > > > And please don't use these ?: constructs, in this case it doesn't even
> > > > make a lot of sense and a
> > > >
> > > > if (rq->errors)
> > > > error = -EIO;
> > > >
> > > > would have been much cleaner ;-)
> > > >
> > > > So my question is why does the model not allow you to return the error
> > > > properly?
> > >
> > > I thought it was the sg_io that would be the problem, but apparently on
> > > further research, it simply discards the error as does scsi_execute_req.
> > >
> > > I suppose that's a strong enough reason to try returning an error ...
> > > I'm just a bit leery this close to a release.
> > >
> > > I think this will work ... it just really needs quite a bit of
> > > testing ...
> >
> > This looks much better, but I'm with you on the danger of applying
> > something like this so close to a release...
>
> Yes.
>
> > Now, this isn't a regression, but it also impacts barrier reliability
> > and as such it's a big nasty to leave this open for another release.
>
> Yes, I agree ... let's put it in after 2.6.25 (so into scsi-misc) but if
> no problems turn up by -rc2 say, I'll send it as a backport to stable
> 2.6.25.X. That way we don't have to wait out the entire release cycle
> for users to see the benefit.

Sounds like a good plan.

--
Jens Axboe