Re: scsi_error: do not allow IO errors with certain ILLEGAL_REQUESTsense to be retryable

[Mike Snitzer]

On Mon, Feb 13 2012 at  1:13pm -0500,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 13 2012 at 12:53pm -0500,
> Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > 
> > Mike> So that makes 3 different _prominent_ storage vendors, that I am
> > Mike> aware of, that are bitten by their broken storage (relative to
> > Mike> discard and properly advertising which variant they actually
> > Mike> support).  I'd much rather deal with the storage vendors (or their
> > Mike> customers) reporting that discards aren't working than mutual
> > Mike> customers reporting that they cannot even install to the storage.
> > 
> > More graceful handling of the sense data aside, we do have a couple of
> > options:
> > 
> >  1. Now that the provisioning portion seems to be stable in SBC-3 we can
> >     nuke the interim spec heuristics and only support devices that
> >     report the right thing. This may disable provisioning for some
> >     existing users whose arrays run non-compliant firmware.
> > 
> >  2. We can add another layer of heuristics based on the RSOC wrapper I
> >     introduced for write same. Maybe you could send me sg_opcodes output
> >     for the arrays in question?
> 
> Yeah, I think that would be welcomed evolution (but as you say,
> independent of improving additional ILLEGAL REQUEST processing).

That was a response to 1 above.

I don't have direct access to the arrays in question to get sg_opcodes.

But I can work on getting them.

Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/