On Sat, 2023-03-04 at 12:49 -0800, Brian Bunker wrote: > On Mar 3, 2023, at 12:41 PM, Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2023-03-03 at 09:18 -0800, Brian Bunker wrote: > > > > > > > Hello Martin, > > > > > > Doesn’t "something in between failed and up” semantics describe > > > ALUA > > > state transitioning pretty well? > > > > transitioning - yes. standby - ?? > > > > Martin > > > The checking for standby is 14 years old, and says that TUR returns > a unit attention when the path is in standby. I am not sure why that > wouldn’t be handled by this code above: I would think there should be > just one unit attention for each I_T_L when an ALUA state change > happens. SPC6 mandates that UA be established after a (successful or failed) state transition. The UA would be seen once after STANDBY was entered, and after that, TUR would finish with CHECK CONDITION, NOT READY, LOGICAL UNIT NOT ACCESSIBLE, TARGET PORT IN STANDBY STATE. Our code is indeed correct in this respect. Martin -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
