Re: [PATCH] scsi: do not print 'reservation conflict' for TEST UNIT READY

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 09/13/2016 04:04 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 10:20 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> SPC-2 and SPC-3 (or later) differ in the handling of reservation
>> conflict for TEST UNIT READY. SPC-2 will return 'reservation 
>> conflict', whereas SPC-3 will return GOOD status.
>> On a mixed system with both SPC-2 and SPC-3 targets one will
>> see lots of 'reservation conflict' messages from the SPC-2 system but
>> no messages from the SPC-3 system when eg multipath path checkers.
>> These messages might confuse the unsuspecting user although in fact
>> they just signal normal operation.
> 
> I don't agree with this: a SCSI-2 device will not get properly
> configured if it's reserved by something else, so you get other strange
> artifacts of this condition.
> 
It's not about SCSI-2, it's for later arrays. See below.

>> So we should not be printing out 'reservation conflict' for
>> TEST UNIT READY responses.
> 
> This doesn't sound like a good rationale to me.  The way I see it, if
> this message is actually useful, people would like to see it when they
> get a reservation conflict.  That does mean even when SCSI-2
> reservations give one where SCSI-3 would not.  The other reason is that
> it tells you why your device didn't get configured properly: both Test
> Unit Ready and Read Capacity get conflicts with SCSI-2, whereas they do
> with SPC-3+ devices (trying to forget SPC-2).
> 
This specific issue occurred with a customer which had a mix of SPC-2
and SPC-3 arrays.
So I can't just 'forget' SPC-2 :-)
The system works just as designed, _except_ that one array is printing
this message (the SPC-2 one) whereas the other one doesn't.
So the message has zero value in this case.

> You could argue that the entire message needs removing, since it's
> reporting stuff that mostly only shows when systems using reservations
> correctly are in operation.
> 
Oh, I'm perfectly fine with that.
I'm happy to send a patch removing that line altogether.

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		      zSeries & Storage
hare@xxxxxxx			      +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (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



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux