On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 13:59 -0400, Rob Evers wrote:
> ---
> drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> index fc3f168..9905e2f 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> @@ -920,12 +920,14 @@ void scsi_io_completion(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd, unsigned int good_bytes)
> action = ACTION_FAIL;
> break;
> default:
> - description = "Unhandled sense code";
> + SCSI_LOG_HLCOMPLETE(1, scmd_printk(KERN_INFO, cmd,
> + "Unhandled sense code\n"));
> action = ACTION_FAIL;
> break;
> }
> } else {
> - description = "Unhandled error code";
> + SCSI_LOG_HLCOMPLETE(1, scmd_printk(KERN_INFO, cmd,
> + "Unhandled error code\n"));
I just don't understand the necessity of this. We're going to fail the
command and we'd like someone to understand why.
Before this patch we print
sdX: Unhandled sense code
sdX: <sense information>
sdX: <command information>
Which hopefully causes someone to investigate what the actual problem
is.
If I apply this patch we're going to print
sdX: <sense information>
sdX: <command information>
Which is even less helpful.
If you're seeing some error or sense code that's causing a common retry,
then perhaps we should add it to the codes we check for instead of
trying to hide it?
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
