[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [RFC] training mpath to discern between SCSI errors
- From: Malahal Naineni <malahal us ibm com>
- To: Hannes Reinecke <hare suse de>
- Cc: michaelc cs wisc edu, jack suse cz, Mike Snitzer <snitzer redhat com>, linux-ide vger kernel org, device-mapper development <dm-devel redhat com>, James Bottomley suse de, konishi ryusuke lab ntt co jp, Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura ce jp nec com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch lst de>, Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda ct jp nec com>, vst vlnb net, Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov mvista com>, linux-scsi vger kernel org, linux-raid vger kernel org, Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>, swhiteho redhat com, chris mason oracle com, tytso mit edu, jaxboe fusionio com, linux-kernel vger kernel org, linux-fsdevel vger kernel org, rwheeler redhat com
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [RFC] training mpath to discern between SCSI errors
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:11:49 -0800
Hannes Reinecke [hare suse de] wrote:
> > Also (although this might be a bit off topic from your patch),
> > can we expand such a distinction to what should be logged?
> > Currently, it's difficult to distinguish important SCSI/block errors
> > and less important ones in kernel log.
> > For example, when I get a link failure on sda, kernel prints something
> > like below, regardless of whether the I/O is recovered by multipathing or not:
> > end_request: I/O error, dev sda, sector XXXXX
> >
> Indeed, when using the above we could be modifying the above
> message, eg by
>
> end_request: transport error, dev sda, sector XXXXX
>
> or
>
> end_request: target error, dev sda, sector XXXXX
>
> which would improve the output noticeable.
>
> > Setting REQ_QUIET in dm-multipath could mask the message
> > but also other important ones in SCSI.
> >
> Hmm. Not sure about that, but I think the above modifications will
> be useful already.
>
> I'll be sending an updated patch.
Hannes, is there an updated version of this patch? It applied fine with
Linus git tree with a minor reject! I would like to test an updated
version if you have one (the update seems to refer to better logging
only, right?).
Thanks, Malahal.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]