On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 09:33:22PM -0700, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > We really need to take a step back here, I really don't like how > we are growing implicit assumptions on how statuses are interpreted. > > Why don't we remove the -ENODEV error propagation back and instead > take care of it in the specific call-sites where we want to ignore > errors with proper quirks? So the one thing I'm not even sure about is if just ignoring the errors was a good idea to start with. They obviously are if we just did a rescan and did run into an error while rescanning a namespace that didn't change. But what if it actually did change? So I think a logic like in this patch kinda makes sense, but I think we also need to retry and scan again on these kinds of errors. Btw, did you ever actually see -ENOMEM in practice? With the small allocations that we do it really should not happen normally, so special casing for it always felt a little strange. FYI, I've started rebasing various bits of work I've done to start untangling the mess. Here is my current WIP, which in this form is completely untested: http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/shortlog/refs/heads/nvme-scanning-cleanup
