From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ewan Milne Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] [SCSI] Enhanced sense and Unit Attention handling Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:13:02 -0400 Message-ID: <1366035182.30762.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1359741195-2641-1-git-send-email-emilne@redhat.com> <516730A1.4090302@tributary.com> Reply-To: emilne@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62170 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751135Ab3DOONK (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:13:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <516730A1.4090302@tributary.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jeremy Linton Cc: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 16:52 -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote: > What happened to this patch? The trail of suggested fixes for the REPORT LUNS > DATA HAS CHANGED check condition is getting pretty long. The number of devices > (our product included) in the field that have the ability to on the fly modify > the luns on an I_T nexus is not decreasing. I haven't heard back about it. If some people would ACK it I think that would help. I also submitted a separate patch for automatic LUN removal. > > Is it because these patches are trying to fix more than one thing? > > What is the preferred way to fix this? > > Why not simply add a couple sdev_evt_send_simple()'s and an event coalesce > function to collapse this event when its received from multiple LUNs on the > I_T? A couple extra uevents isn't going to kill udev right? Well, the patch does that, among other things. I think handling the other UA codes is a good idea, because existing LUNs can be reconfigured. Coalescing events in the kernel is necessary because udev couldn't handle a large number of events from a big storage configuration. > A really > fancy > patch could attempt to clear the check conditions from LUNs that share the I_T. I think the mid-layer will handle that automatically. If check conditions are reported the commands will have to be reissued. -Ewan > > > > > >