From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Snitzer Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] scsi: Detailed I/O errors Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:35:26 -0500 Message-ID: <20110127223525.GH14951@redhat.com> References: <4D357AA3.5070509@interlog.com> <4D358130.6040508@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:1907 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751915Ab1A0Wfp (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:35:45 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D358130.6040508@suse.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Hannes Reinecke Cc: dgilbert@interlog.com, James Bottomley , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, jaxboe@fusionio.com, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu, agk@redhat.com On Tue, Jan 18 2011 at 7:01am -0500, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 01/18/2011 12:33 PM, Douglas Gilbert wrote: > > This patchset is primarily for fixing up multipathing, > which has the habit of retrying failed I/Os on the > next path. For some errors this is just pointless > (eg MEDIUM ERROR), for some errors this is the desired > behaviour (namely transport errors), and for others > this is positively damaging (persistent reservation > failures). > Just plain EIO simply don't cover the whole range :-) > > > > > BTW might "vulgo" be "ergo" [Latin: therefore]? > > > Nope. Correct etymology is from 'sermo vulgaris', > ie the language of the common people. > But maybe I should remove it for the next > round to avoid confusion. Is a new round even needed given there haven't been any code issues raised against v4? James, what are your thoughts on this patchset? Would be great to get this in scsi-misc for 2.6.39 Please advise, Mike