Re: [PATCH v4 02/18] block: Rename BLK_STS_NEXUS to BLK_STS_RESV_CONFLICT

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 11:36:12AM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
> I think we are ok for dasd using BLK_STS_RESV_CONFLICT.
> 
> It thought it sounded similar to SCSI/NVMe and userspace will still
> see -EBADE because the blk_status_to_errno/errno_to_blk_status will
> handle this.
> 
> There was no internal dasd code checking for BLK_STS_NEXUS.
> 
> There is a pr_ops API, but dasd is not hooked into it so we don't
> have to worry about behavior changes.

Yes, we don't have to worry about it.  I just find a bit confusing
to have a PR-related error in a driver that doesn't use PRs.

Maybe add a little comment that it is used for some s390 or DASD
specific locking instead.

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




[Index of Archives]     [DM Crypt]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux