On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 22:23:06 +0200 (EET) Kai Makisara <Kai.Makisara@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > > On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:40:53 +0200 (EET) > > Kai Makisara <Kai.Makisara@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > If so, can you try this patch to convert st_int_ioctl? > > > > > > > I replaced my patch with yours. Now the tests pass. I did some tests with > > > debugging enabled and those showed that the sense data is returned > > > correctly. > > > > Great, then can I get your ACK on this patchset? > > > Yes, you can add > Acked-by: Kai Makisara <Kai.Makisara@xxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! > > > > Do you prefer me to change st_scsi_kern_execute to set -EBUSY to > > > > syscall_result if st_scsi_kern_execute internally fails (that is, > > > > blk_rq_map_kern or blk_get_request fails)? > > > > > > > I am not sure that -EBUSY is a valid error return any more. Should the > > > error be -ENOMEM if blk_get_request fails and otherwise return what > > > blk_rq_map_kern returns? > > > > > > > Note that scsi_execute_async (which st_do_scsi uses) could fail > > > > internally. scsi_execute_async and st_scsi_kern_execute uses the same > > > > functions that could fail, blk_rq_map_kern or blk_get_request > > > > > > > Yes. I am not sure that -EBUSY is correct return value there. > > > > I think that it's the right thing to return an error value to user > > space that scsi_execute_async returns but st_do_scsi uses has returned > > -EBUSY for any failure for long time so it might be safer to keep the > > current behavior. > > > Retaining the old behaviour is always a safe solution but sometimes it is > time to improve code. Note that scsi_execute_async() only returns > (DRIVER_ERROR << 24) in case of error. Ah, right, I overlooked it. > This does not allow using different > error codes for different error reasons. With st_scsi_kern_execute it is > possible. > > > I'll change st_scsi_kern_execute to set -EBUSY in case of internal > > failure in the next submission if you prefer. > > > I don't like returning -EBUSY always now that we have a choice. However, > if you think the conservative solution of returning -EBUSY is better, I > don't object. Thanks, I see. I simplified st_scsi_kern_execute by using scsi_execute. scsi_execute returns DRIVER_ERROR << 24 for internal failures like scsi_execute_async does. I changed st_scsi_kern_execute to return -EBUSY for now as st_do_scsi does. st_scsi_kern_execute would be changed again in the second half so this might be changed. But I think if we change return code, it would be better to do it in a separate patch (explicitly). -- 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
