From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Evers Subject: Re: [PATCH] log unhandled scsi error and sense messages via SCSI_LOG Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 18:37:08 -0400 Message-ID: <4E8F7F14.6090407@redhat.com> References: <1318010370-26976-1-git-send-email-revers@redhat.com> <1318011808.5071.90.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <4E8F52EB.3070000@cs.wisc.edu> <4E8F5485.3090008@cs.wisc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:30299 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758737Ab1JGWhP (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2011 18:37:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4E8F5485.3090008@cs.wisc.edu> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Christie Cc: James Bottomley , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, hare@suse.de 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.