[dm-devel] [RFC] training mpath to discern between SCSI errors
Sergei Shtylyov
sshtylyov at mvista.com
Mon Aug 30 12:07:48 UTC 2010
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.
WBR, Sergei
More information about the dm-devel
mailing list