On Mon, Jan 08 2018 at 5:19am -0500, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 11:09:03AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > >> case NVME_SC_SUCCESS: > > >> return BLK_STS_OK; > > >> case NVME_SC_CAP_EXCEEDED: > > >> + case NVME_SC_LBA_RANGE: > > >> return BLK_STS_NOSPC; > > > > > > lba range isn't really enospc. It is returned when the lba in > > > the command is outside the logical size of the namespace. > > > > > Isn't that distinction pretty academic? > > The entire block-to-POSIX error mapping is pretty much ad-hoc anyway... > > Yes, BLK_STS_NOSPC matters. And the fix is pretty trivial, so there is > no point in arguing. No argument needed. Definitely needs fixing. Too many upper layers consider BLK_STS_NOSPC retryable (XFS, ext4, dm-thinp, etc). Which NVME_SC_LBA_RANGE absolutely isn't. When I backfilled NVME_SC_LBA_RANGE handling I categorized it as BLK_STS_TARGET. Do you have a better suggestion for how NVME_SC_LBA_RANGE should be categorized? Mike
