On 08/02/2015 05:44 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:02:03PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >> If a failed command has a valid autosense there is no need to >> retry it on the ATA level; at best we're incurring the same >> error again. So rather not retry it here, but leave it to >> the SCSI layer to decide if a retry is in order. > > Hmmm... I don't know. So, we change how we handle errors completely > depending on how the device reports it? Doesn't seem like a > particularly good idea to me. > The whole point of the autosense feature is that you do _not_ have to fall back to the original trial-and-error libata EH, but know exactly what the problem is. Plus any retry will be giving us (in most cases) exactly the same sense code. _And_ the SCSI layer is actually able to understand the sense code, allowing him to make a better judgment on what to do with that error. So any retry in the libata layer will only slow things down, leading to the same results eventually. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
