From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=34430 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OWJOu-0000ds-A6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 21:26:13 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OWJOs-00083y-Om for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 21:26:12 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:45210) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OWJOs-00083i-AG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 21:26:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 03:26:09 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Message-ID: <20100707012609.GF2398@lst.de> References: <1278418136-24556-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <1278418136-24556-7-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1278418136-24556-7-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v2 06/13] scsi: Reject unimplemented error actions List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, hch@lst.de, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kraxel@redhat.com On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 02:08:49PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > drive_init() doesn't permit rerror for if=scsi, but that's worthless: > we get it via if=none and -device. > > Moreover, scsi-generic doesn't support werror. Since drive_init() > doesn't catch that, option werror was silently ignored even with > if=scsi. > > Wart: unlike drive_init(), we don't reject the default action when > it's explicitly specified. That's because we can't distinguish "no > rerror option" from "rerror=report", or "no werror" from > "rerror=enospc". Left for another day. I can't see a good reason that scsi doesn't support the rerror option, and implementing is trivial. So while this patch looks correct I'd rather see rerror implemented for scsi than hacking around the lack of it.