From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com (e1.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e1.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAA4CDDED6 for ; Tue, 20 May 2008 23:52:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m4KDqc5R007115 for ; Tue, 20 May 2008 09:52:38 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m4KDqco3094868 for ; Tue, 20 May 2008 09:52:38 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m4KDqb8L020388 for ; Tue, 20 May 2008 09:52:38 -0400 Message-ID: <4832D7A4.1070609@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 08:52:36 -0500 From: Brian King MIME-Version: 1.0 To: michael@ellerman.id.au Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ibmvscsi: Non SCSI error status fixup References: <12112108763801-patch-mail.ibm.com> <18481.41759.969242.972595@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <1211245688.12970.0.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1211245688.12970.0.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, SCSI Mailing List Reply-To: brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 10:56 -0500, Dave Boutcher wrote: >> On Mon, 19 May 2008 10:27:56 -0500, Brian King said: >>> Some versions of the Virtual I/O Server on Power >>> return 0x99 in the non-SCSI error status field as success, >>> rather than 0. This fixes the ibmvscsi driver to treat this >>> response as success. >> Yeah....0x99...that's an intuitive value for success. > > Hopefully there are no versions that return 0x99 for an error? :) There shouldn't be. 0x99 is actually not defined as a valid value for that field, but it is what the ibmvscsis VIOS that is included in SLES 9 and SLES 10 return on success, due to a bug in that driver. We plan to fix the ibmvscsis driver as well, but it will take a while for that fix to propagate. Until very recently, the status field was not checked, which is why we are only recently running into this problem. -Brian -- Brian King Linux on Power Virtualization IBM Linux Technology Center