From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] scsi: Detailed I/O errors Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 09:12:52 +0100 Message-ID: <4D427A84.7090501@fusionio.com> References: <4D357AA3.5070509@interlog.com> <4D358130.6040508@suse.de> <20110127223525.GH14951@redhat.com> <1296168102.3050.83.camel@mulgrave.site> <20110127225431.GI14951@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.fusionio.com ([64.244.102.31]:47986 "EHLO mx2.fusionio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754849Ab1A1IMq (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jan 2011 03:12:46 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110127225431.GI14951@redhat.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Snitzer Cc: James Bottomley , Hannes Reinecke , "dgilbert@interlog.com" , James Bottomley , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "michaelc@cs.wisc.edu" , "agk@redhat.com" On 2011-01-27 23:54, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27 2011 at 5:41pm -0500, > James Bottomley wrote: > >> On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 17:35 -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: >>> 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, >> >> Well, it covers three subsystems ... I was waiting for Alasdair and Jens >> to ack ... but I bet they each were waiting for the other two to ack ... >> >> So, I'll take it if no objections. > > OK, I just sent a mail to jens and alasdair asking the same ;) This one will be easier just to take in the SCSI tree, since there's so little risk for conflict. You can add my acked-by to the patches. -- Jens Axboe