On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 15:05 -0400, Ewan D. Milne wrote: > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 08:06 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 16:24 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > > On 09/13/2016 04:04 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > OK, how about lowering the priority to KERN_DEBUG so it can still > > be > > seen, just not usually. > > > > James > > > > So, if we do this, and someone else does a SCSI-2 RESERVE on the LUN > while we have a file system mounted, what error will we end up > getting? > I would assume that we would still see the usual SCSI error message > with the CDB printed, and that the "reservation conflict" message was > supplemental? Or does the message get suppressed? I'll have to try > this... It will print out the CDB and the return code, which should say Read (or Write) [ACTION_FAIL in scsi_io_completion()]. However, it looks like scsi_print_result() doesn't actually print the device byte, which is where the reservation conflict is, so perhaps that should also be fixed. 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
