On 2/3/22 10:23 AM, Song Liu wrote:
> Hi Hannes and Jens,
>
>> On Feb 3, 2022, at 5:47 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>> On 2/3/22 07:52, Song Liu wrote:
>>>> CC linux-block (it was a typo in the original email)
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 10:40 PM Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, drivers reports BLK_STS_IOERR for devices that are not full
>>>>> online or being removed. This behavior could cause confusion for users,
>>>>> as they are not really I/O errors from the device.
>>>>>
>>>>> Solve this issue with a new state BLK_STS_OFFLINE, which reports "device
>>>>> offline error" in dmesg instead of "I/O error".
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> block/blk-core.c | 1 +
>>>>> include/linux/blk_types.h | 7 +++++++
>>>>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
>>>>> index 61f6a0dc4511..24035dd2eef1 100644
>>>>> --- a/block/blk-core.c
>>>>> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
>>>>> @@ -164,6 +164,7 @@ static const struct {
>>>>> [BLK_STS_RESOURCE] = { -ENOMEM, "kernel resource" },
>>>>> [BLK_STS_DEV_RESOURCE] = { -EBUSY, "device resource" },
>>>>> [BLK_STS_AGAIN] = { -EAGAIN, "nonblocking retry" },
>>>>> + [BLK_STS_OFFLINE] = { -EIO, "device offline" },
>>>>>
>>>>> /* device mapper special case, should not leak out: */
>>>>> [BLK_STS_DM_REQUEUE] = { -EREMCHG, "dm internal retry" },
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/blk_types.h b/include/linux/blk_types.h
>>>>> index fe065c394fff..5561e58d158a 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/blk_types.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/blk_types.h
>>>>> @@ -153,6 +153,13 @@ typedef u8 __bitwise blk_status_t;
>>>>> */
>>>>> #define BLK_STS_ZONE_ACTIVE_RESOURCE ((__force blk_status_t)16)
>>>>>
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * BLK_STS_OFFLINE is returned from the driver when the target device is offline
>>>>> + * or is being taken offline. This could help differentiate the case where a
>>>>> + * device is intentionally being shut down from a real I/O error.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +#define BLK_STS_OFFLINE ((__force blk_status_t)17)
>>>>> +
>>>>> /**
>>>>> * blk_path_error - returns true if error may be path related
>>>>> * @error: status the request was completed with
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.30.2
>>>>>
>>> Please do not overload EIO here.
>>> EIO already is a catch-all error if we don't know any better, but for
>>> the 'device offline' case we do (or rather should).
>>> Please map it onto 'ENODEV' or 'ENXIO'.
>>
>> It's deliberately EIO as not to force a change in behavior. I don't mind
>> using something else, but that should be a separate change then.
>
> Thanks for these feedbacks. Shall I send v2 with an extra patch that
> changes EIO to ENODEV/ENXIO? Or shall we do that in a follow up patch?
> Also, any preference between ENODEV and ENXIO?
Yeah I think so, and perhaps put a mention in this patch on why EIO is
chosen to not change the user visible return value.
--
Jens Axboe
