From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [linux-iscsi-devel] [question] deferred sense Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 16:23:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20050105152333.GA1453@lst.de> References: <41DB21D7.5080904@us.ibm.com> <20050104234700.GA18343@visi.com> <20050105092144.GB26793@lst.de> <20050105152112.GA8472@visi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:43470 "EHLO mail.lst.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262476AbVAEPXv (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jan 2005 10:23:51 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050105152112.GA8472@visi.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Scott M. Ferris" Cc: Mike Christie , linux-iscsi-devel , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:21:12AM -0600, Scott M. Ferris wrote: > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:21:44AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > The kernel still doesn't hadle deferred sense correctly. In fact I'm > > not sure it's entirely possible to handle deferred sense correctly. > > > > The iscsi driver variant of "translating" it to normal sense data and > > that for disks only certainly doesn't make much sense. > > To be more specific, there were some devices that would fail a command > and return deferred sense. The command didn't complete at the target, > and the kernel wasn't retrying it because the sense was deferred > rather than current. For those devices, the translation produced the > desired retry. Do you remember these devices? Might be worth adding a midlayer blacklist entry for them. And I suspect we should get linux-scsi in the loop for the discussion about deferred sense handling.