On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 04:50:44PM -0500, tmhikaru@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:39:44PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Tue 24-11-09 15:13:01, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > > > > After digging in block layer code, it's as we suspected: > > > > In case of host error DID_ERROR (which is our case), scsi request is > > > > retried iff it is not a FAILFAST request which is set if bio is doing > > > > readahead... So this is explained and everything behaves as it should. > > > > Thanks everybody involved :). > > > > > > Okay, very good. There remains the question of the disturbing error > > > messages in the system log. Should they be supressed for FAILFAST > > > requests? > > I think it's useful they are there because ultimately, something really > > went wrong and you should better investigate. BTW, "end_request: I/O error" > > messages are in the log even for requests where we retried and succeeded... > > > > Honza > > While I agree it is useful information, I think that if the error messages > are going to be printed, you should *also* print that this is a NON FATAL > error and that it's going to be retried. It'd help diagnosing the path it's > following through the failure code IMHO as well as not making users > completely freak out like I did in my case. It is *not* particularly obvious > given the message printed to syslog what is going wrong or why. > > Just my opinion, > Tim McGrath I should have asked since I'm here at the moment - do you need any more information out of the buggy USB enclosure at the moment, or can I work on trying to fix/replace it now? Tim McGrath -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
