From: Roman Kisel <romank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 2:55 PM > > On 2/28/2025 12:55 PM, Michael Kelley wrote: > > From: Roman Kisel <romank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 > 3:31 PM > >> > >> The log statement reports the packet status code as the hypercall > >> status code which causes confusion when debugging. > >> > >> Fix the name of the datum being logged. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Roman Kisel <romank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c b/drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c > >> index a8614e54544e..d7ec79536d9a 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c > >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c > >> @@ -1183,7 +1183,7 @@ static void storvsc_on_io_completion(struct storvsc_device *stor_device, > >> STORVSC_LOGGING_WARN : STORVSC_LOGGING_ERROR; > >> > >> storvsc_log_ratelimited(device, loglevel, > >> - "tag#%d cmd 0x%x status: scsi 0x%x srb 0x%x hv 0x%x\n", > >> + "tag#%d cmd 0x%x status: scsi 0x%x srb 0x%x sts 0x%x\n", > >> scsi_cmd_to_rq(request->cmd)->tag, > >> stor_pkt->vm_srb.cdb[0], > >> vstor_packet->vm_srb.scsi_status, > > > > FWIW, I added that last status value labelled "hv" in commit 08f76547f08d. And > > to confirm the discussion on the other thread, it's not a hypercall status -- it's a > > standard Windows NT status returned by the host-side VMBus or storvsp code. > > The "hv" is shorthand for Hyper-V, not hypercall. Perhaps that status is > > interpretable in a Windows guest, but it's not really interpretable in a Linux > > guest. The hex value would be useful only in the context of a support case > > where someone on the host side could be engaged to help with the > > interpretation. > > > > I have no strong opinions on the label. Changing it from "hv" to "sts" or > > to "host" works for me. > > Thank you, Michael, for helping us out with that! I'm leaning towards > "host" after Easwar's suggestion. As I understand from your reply, > it's fair to keep the tag as you're fine with the "host" option. Yes, my Reviewed-by: is good using "host". Also remember to fix the commit message to not call it a "hypercall status code" since it isn't from a hypercall. Michael > > > > > Reviewed-by: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > -- > Thank you, > Roman
