Hannes, > The one thing which I patently don't like is the ambivalence between > DRIVER_SENSE and scsi_sense_valid(). What shall we do if only _one_ > of them is set? IE what would be the correct way of action if > DRIVER_SENSE is not set, but we have a valid sense code? Or the other > way around? I agree, it's a mess. (Sorry, zhengbin, you opened a can of worms. This is some of our oldest and most arcane code in SCSI) > But more important, from a quick glance not all drivers set the > DRIVER_SENSE bit; so for things like hpsa or smartpqi the sense code is > never evaluated after this patchset. And yet we appear to have several code paths where sense evaluation is contingent on DRIVER_SENSE. So no matter what, behavior might change if we enforce consistent semantics. *sigh* > I _really_ would prefer to ditch the 'DRIVER_SENSE' bit, and rely on > scsi_sense_valid() only. I would really like to get rid of DRIVER_* completely. Except for DRIVER_SENSE, few are actually in use: DRIVER_OK: 0 DRIVER_BUSY: 0 DRIVER_SOFT: 0 DRIVER_MEDIA: 0 DRIVER_ERROR: 6 DRIVER_INVALID: 4 DRIVER_TIMEOUT: 1 DRIVER_SENSE: 58 Johannes: Whatever happened to your efforts at cleaning all this up? Do you have a patch series or a working tree we could use as starting point? -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
