On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 08:22:27PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 1/30/18 8:21 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-01-30 at 20:17 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> BLK_STS_RESOURCE should always be safe to return, and it should work > >> the same as STS_DEV_RESOURCE, except it may cause an extra queue > >> run. > >> > >> Well written drivers should use STS_DEV_RESOURCE where it makes > >> sense. > > > > Hello Jens, > > > > I would appreciate it if other names would be chosen than BLK_STS_RESOURCE > > and BLK_STS_DEV_RESOURCE, e.g. names that directly refer to the fact that > > one of the two status codes causes the queue to be rerun and the other not. > > I'm afraid that the currently chosen names will cause confusion. > > DEV_RESOURCE is pretty clear I think, but I agree that STS_RESOURCE > could perhaps be better. STS_SYSTEM_RESOURCE? It makes the distinction I guess it still can't cover all, for example, .queue_rq() may not submit rq to hardware successfully because of tansport busy, such FC,.. -- Ming -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
