From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Reinecke Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use a more selective error recovery strategy based on device capabilities Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:17:36 +0100 Message-ID: <511DE110.4040506@suse.de> References: <511A87CA.5010901@tributary.com> <511B8FBF.9000705@suse.de> <511BB545.7060600@tributary.com> <12DB2383-B7CE-4DD4-BBAA-D6701271A6E6@cs.wisc.edu> <511D4FB5.708@tributary.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42233 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935345Ab3BOHRi (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Feb 2013 02:17:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: <511D4FB5.708@tributary.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jeremy Linton Cc: Michael Christie , Linux Scsi , "Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)" On 02/14/2013 09:57 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote: > On 2/13/2013 8:43 PM, Michael Christie wrote: >> For the case where report supported TMFs is not supported can we jus= t have the >> LLD return some new return code from the eh callback when it=20 gets FUNCTION_REJECTED. >> scsi-ml would then clear the eh_*_ok bit, so at least it would=20 not be called again.. > > > Hmm, that seems like a good idea. The question is, does propagating = the flag > change to all the devices on the I_T make sense? > Hmm. Again, I've yet to find a storage array which actually _does_=20 reject a TMF. None of mine do, not even the latest and greatest NetApp Ontap=20 version ... Cheers, Hannes --=20 Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imend=F6rffer, HRB 16746 (AG N=FCrnberg) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html