[dm-devel] [PATCH] HP SW support take 3
Mike Christie
michaelc at cs.wisc.edu
Tue Jun 14 00:24:27 UTC 2005
Mike Christie wrote:
> Christophe Varoqui wrote:
>
>> I confirm a robust behaviour now with take 3.
>> Here is a take 4 that move to an appropriate "best effort mode", ie
>> always return success.
>>
>> The point is, whenever DM start submitting io the an asleep controler,
>> precede with a START command. If it fails ... too bad, the consecutive
>> io will fail and DM will try another PG. Had to do that because take 3
>> interprets an error where the controler switch have correctly happened.
>>
>
> ok so is it if the controller is already failed over and we send the
> START command, rq->errors had some value so I ended up failing the
> operation, right? Let me send a patch that will dump the sense and
> rq->errors info out so we can see if there is some nice ASC/ASCQ value
> that will tell us this occured like with the LSI boxes.
oh wait, when I reread this I guess you are saying that I was always
gettting a rq->error value when I send a START_STOP and it succeeds?
More information about the dm-devel
mailing list