On 05/07/2015 01:48 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 05/04/15 14:42, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> @@ -161,12 +164,12 @@ static unsigned submit_rtpg(struct
>> scsi_device *sdev, struct alua_dh_data *h,
>> rq->sense_len = h->senselen = 0;
>>
>> err = blk_execute_rq(rq->q, NULL, rq, 1);
>> - if (err == -EIO) {
>> - sdev_printk(KERN_INFO, sdev,
>> - "%s: rtpg failed with %x\n",
>> - ALUA_DH_NAME, rq->errors);
>> + if (err < 0) {
>> + if (!rq->errors)
>> + err = DID_ERROR << 16;
>> + else
>> + err = rq->errors;
>> h->senselen = rq->sense_len;
>> - err = SCSI_DH_IO;
>> }
>> blk_put_request(rq);
>> done:
>
> Running the grep query "->errors = " over the Linux kernel source
> tree shows that sometimes a SCSI error code is written into that
> field and sometimes a negative error code. Does this mean that the
> test !rq->errors should be modified into !rq->errors &&
> !IS_ERR_VALUE(rq->errors) ?
>
Hmm. I'm going to review this. 'rq->errors' should be used consistently.
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
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
