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 -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
