On Wed, Feb 18 2015 at 12:54pm -0500, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 12:10 -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > > Let's please set this thread to one side. I already offered my thoughts > > in this thread, see: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2015-February/msg00076.html > > > > I'm not interested in wiring up the actual error return for dm-mirror's > > benefit. If/when other dm-io consumers have a need to differentiate > > between error codes we'll fix dm-io as needed. > > Yep, concur ... the point I've been obviously failing to make is that > all the world is not an SSD. I agree, and am aware. The layers that have needed to worry about properly differentiating between these higher level returns from SCSI do (e.g. dm-mpath). But it is pretty rare for bio-based DM targets to differentiate between error codes. Not saying that is right, just that is how things stand. Could be there is room for improvement in places. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
