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@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
