Re: [PATCH] log unhandled scsi error and sense messages via SCSI_LOG

[Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>]

On 10/07/2011 02:28 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 10/07/2011 01:23 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>> If you're seeing some error or sense code that's causing a common retry,
>> then perhaps we should add it to the codes we check for instead of
>> trying to hide it?
> 
> We get questions about pretty much all of the error codes that do not
> have a extra string and can get failed here.
> 
> The problem is with the use of the word unhandled. Users think for
> retryable errors we did not retry, or they think it means even if they
> have multipath/raid that the error is going to the application or FS so
> they get worried and make extra support requests.
> 
> Was the patch that just changed the strings to ""Extended sense
> description not available" and "Extended error description not available":
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg54874.html
> ok?
> 
> I think in the end Rob is just trying to get out of having to figure out
> strings for all the error codes :)

I put a smiley face there, but I really think that at least for the host
byte error codes and scsi-ml error codes we should have a string.