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

[Rob Evers <revers@redhat.com>]

  On 10/07/2011 03:35 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
> 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 :)

What's the worst that could happen?

Thanks, I'll give it a try.