On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 12:15 -0800, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 12:58 -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 16:32 -0800, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > > Subject: scsi_dh: Add support for SDEV_PASSIVE > > > > > > From: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This patch adds a new device state SDEV_PASSIVE, to correspond to the > > > passive side access of an active/passive multipathed device. > > > > Really, no; this isn't right. The state field of a SCSI device is for > > the SCSI state model. Passive might be a valid device mapper state, but > > Hi James, > > It is not the "device mapper state", it is the state of the device > itself. These devices have active/passive paths, the passive paths will > be represented by SDEV_PASSIVE device state in SCSI. Yes, it is .. you're killing commands on the basis of being in this state, which nothing in SCSI ever sets. A proper return from a passive path is the SCSI standard NOT_READY LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, INITIALIZING COMMAND REQUIRED. We expect to see this, not the command being killed. James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
