On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 04:00 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 09:27:15PM +0200, Maurizio Lombardi wrote: > > > How about simple not setting description at all for this case? > > > > > > > It has already been proposed before but James didn't like the idea. > > > > http://markmail.org/message/dumujpz4gfp3s4fp#query:+page:1+mid:dumujpz4gfp3s4fp+state:results > > James never replied to Robs question. I can't think of any value add > that "Unhandled XYZ" adds when we already get a usesul message from the > same error. > > James, care to comment what'd you like to see printed here? I'm happy with eliminating "Unhanndled Error Code" because that is misleading ... we should only get there if we have a DID_X return and they're all fatal errors which will be printed. I'm less happy removing "Unhandled Sense Code". The danger is that we get some harmless sense code we should have handled and instead error the command. Since for this error we know the next print will be the sense code, what about changing it to "Failing Command with sense code:" 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
