From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] scsi: smartpqi_init: Reporting 'logical unit failure' Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 07:56:37 -0800 Message-ID: <1551455797.3334.6.camel@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190227163133.26283-1-e.velu@criteo.com> <20190301145832.12735-1-e.velu@criteo.com> <1551453987.3334.2.camel@linux.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Erwan Velu , Erwan Velu , "elliott@hpe.com" Cc: Don Brace , "Martin K. Petersen" , "open list:MICROSEMI SMART ARRAY SMARTPQI DRIVER (smartpqi)" , "open list:MICROSEMI SMART ARRAY SMARTPQI DRIVER (smartpqi)" , open list List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2019-03-01 at 15:43 +0000, Erwan Velu wrote: > Le 01/03/2019 à 16:26, James Bottomley a écrit : > > [...] > > Shouldn't this be a variant of sdev/scmd_printk? Otherwise it > > tells > > you what disk in the array terms is the problem but not what device > > in > > your actual system is affected. > > Hey James, > > My initial take on that was that pqi_take_device_offline(), which is > called just after, will print the "re-scanning " message with the > same > format. > > As they will be both printed in the same error context and one after > the > other, I though that would make sense to represent the same > information > to ease the reading like cause -> consequence. > > As the message is about the LUN itself, which is reported faulty, I > though it would worth reporting the info that way. > > Shall I consider printing also the disk name in addition ? I was thinking just if (printk_ratelimit()) scmd_printk(KERN_ERR, scmd, "received 'logical unit failure' from controller for scsi %d:%d:%d:%d\n", ... That will give all the necessary information James