On 10/07/2011 02:28 PM, Mike Christie wrote: > On 10/07/2011 01:23 PM, James Bottomley wrote: >> 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? > > We get questions about pretty much all of the error codes that do not > have a extra string and can get failed here. > > The problem is with the use of the word unhandled. Users think for > retryable errors we did not retry, or they think it means even if they > have multipath/raid that the error is going to the application or FS so > they get worried and make extra support requests. > > Was the patch that just changed the strings to ""Extended sense > description not available" and "Extended error description not available": > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg54874.html > ok? > > I think in the end Rob is just trying to get out of having to figure out > strings for all the error codes :) I put a smiley face there, but I really think that at least for the host byte error codes and scsi-ml error codes we should have a string. -- 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
