On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 15:50 +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: KY Srinivasan > > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:42 AM > > To: 'James Bottomley' > > Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ohering@xxxxxxxx; hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: RE: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Set the scsi result correctly > > when SRB status is INVALID > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: James Bottomley [mailto:James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 4:52 AM > > > To: KY Srinivasan > > > Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ohering@xxxxxxxx; hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > > scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Set the scsi result > > correctly > > > when SRB status is INVALID > > > > > > On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 22:52 +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > > > > However, keep in mind > > > > > > that there is no current ETA on when Windows will ship with these > > changes > > > - > > > > > Windows 8 > > > > > > may ship with code where they would return an invalid SRB status, but > > they > > > are > > > > > not > > > > > > setting the sense code, hence this patch. When the Window host does > > the > > > > > "right thing" > > > > > > I will clean this up, but I don't know when that will be. > > > > > > > > > > I thought you just said you'd only just asked them if they could > > > > > implemented it, in which case no version of windows currently ships with > > > > > this, correct? > > > > > > > > There are some private builds of windows 8 floating around with this change, > > > where > > > > they are returning ILLEGAL_REQUEST SRB status without any sense data. > > > > > > Sure, but they're not shipped, right ... it's like the test builds we do > > > for large companies like IBM and HP to try out certain things before > > > deciding they don't work. > > > > They are close to shipping and it is very difficult to get any changes in > > presently. Furthermore, this is only on windows8; none of the prior > > versions of windows servers of interest support this. I am starting an effort to > > get this change into prior windows servers. Once again, it is not clear when > > these changes will be pushed out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > More importantly, the second patch in this series where I filter out > > > > > > the ATA_16 command > > > > > > on the guest is really important for us. Without that patch on a range > > > > > > on windows hosts > > > > > > including the current beta version of windows8 where the host is > > > > > > returning a generic > > > > > > error in response to ATA_16 command, we cannot boot many Linux > > > > > > distros. If you > > > > > > prefer, I can drop the first patch and re-submit the second patch for > > > > > > consideration now. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure about that either. You presumably translate > > > > > SRB_STATUS_ERROR into DID_TARGET_FAILURE. That should cause the > > > > > termination of the command with prejudice in exactly the same way as an > > > > > ILLEGAL_REQUEST sense code would (minus the useful error information), > > > > > so what's causing the boot failure? > > > > > > > > You are right, currently without a proper SRB code, I do a > > DID_TARGET_FAILURE > > > and > > > > this results in the device being offlined and if the device happens to be the > > root > > > device, > > > > we obviously cannot boot. I have seen this problem with sles11 sp2 on a win8 > > > box. > > > > > > OK, so this may be the root cause of the problem. DID_TARGET_FAILURE > > > returns FAILED from scsi_decide_disposition(). This wakes up the error > > > handler to retry the command and, since the command is never going to > > > work, this ends up offlining the device. The same thing will happen for > > > every command with no recovery. > > > > > > The question now is, what else returns SRB_STATUS_ERROR? If it's always > > > for stuff that's unretryable, then the DID_ error is wrong and you > > > should be returning DID_PASSTHROUGH with an error code and the problem > > > will be solved. If we can get SRB_STATUS_ERROR on retryable commands, > > > then you discriminate at the point of failure, not at the point of input > > > and return DID_TARGET_FAILURE for the ones that should be retried and > > > DID_PASSTHROUGH + error for the ones that shouldn't. This will ensure > > > the driver is completely backwards compatible and that it will work > > > if/when windows properly handles the commands. > > > > James, unfortunately based on the current SRB codes I get back from the > > host, I don't know which commands that failed ought to be retried and which > > ones should not be; I simply get a single SRB error code for cases where the > > host filtered the unsupported commands as well as the case where the host > > supported the command and something failed in the command execution. > > If there is something I can try in this driver to fix this problem, I am more than > > happy to try it. If it involves getting changes into the host (win8, win2k8 etc.), > > I am willing to start a conversation with the relevant teams, but I cannot > > obviously determine when such changes will ship. However, I do need > > solution for the problem now. > > > > I appreciate your taking the time to help me gravitate towards the > > correct solution here. Given my constraints, let me know what is the > > best way forward here. > > Ping. On what? What don't you understand about the above? The failure path needs to look like the following metacode case SRB_whatever if (retryable command) return DID_TARGET_FAILURE else setup sense and error return DID_PASSTHROUGH James _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
