[dm-devel] [RFC] training mpath to discern between SCSI errors
Hannes Reinecke
hare at suse.de
Mon Aug 30 12:39:12 UTC 2010
Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>
>> Actually, I think we have two separate issues here:
>> 1) The need of having more detailed I/O errors even in the fs layer. This
>> we've already discussed at the LSF, consensus here is to allow other
>> errors than just 'EIO'.
>> Instead of Mike's approach I would rather use existing error codes
>> here;
>> this will make the transition somewhat easier.
>> Initially I would propose to return 'ENOLINK' for a transport failure,
>> 'EIO' for a non-retryable failure on the target, and 'ENODEV' for a
>> retryable failure on the target.
>
> Are you sure it's not vice versa: EIO for retryable and ENODEV for
> non-retryable failures. ENODEV looks more like permanent condition to me.
>
Ok, can do.
And looking a the error numbers again, maybe we should be using 'EREMOTEIO'
for non-retryable failures.
So we would be ending with:
ENOLINK: transport failure
EIO: retryable remote failure
EREMOTEIO: non-retryable remote failure
Does that look okay?
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare at suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
More information about the dm-devel
mailing list