On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 08:27 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 06/11/2015 05:07 PM, Ewan Milne wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 13:01 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> >> The 'sd' driver is calling scsi_mode_sense() to figure out
> >> internal details. But scsi_mode_sense() never checks for
> >> any pending unit attentions, so we're getting annoying error
> >> messages like:
> >>
> >> MODE SENSE: unimplemented page/subpage: 0x00/0x00
> >>
> >> and a possible wrong decision for device cache handling.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <h...@suse.de>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c | 7 ++++++-
> >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> >> index 2428d96..d7915c8 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> >> @@ -2423,7 +2423,7 @@ scsi_mode_sense(struct scsi_device *sdev, int dbd,
> >> int modepage,
> >> unsigned char cmd[12];
> >> int use_10_for_ms;
> >> int header_length;
> >> - int result;
> >> + int result, retry_count = retries;
> >> struct scsi_sense_hdr my_sshdr;
> >>
> >> memset(data, 0, sizeof(*data));
> >> @@ -2502,6 +2502,11 @@ scsi_mode_sense(struct scsi_device *sdev, int dbd,
> >> int modepage,
> >> data->block_descriptor_length = buffer[3];
> >> }
> >> data->header_length = header_length;
> >> + } else if ((status_byte(result) == CHECK_CONDITION) &&
> >> + scsi_sense_valid(sshdr) &&
> >> + sshdr->sense_key == UNIT_ATTENTION && retry_count) {
> >> + retry_count--;
> >> + goto retry;
> >> }
> >>
> >> return result;
> >
> > Great, but shouldn't we be doing this more generally? What about
> > scsi_mode_select()?
> >
> I haven't seen any issues with scsi_mode_select() as of now, so I
> didn't do anything about this :-)
>
> > (And, with the number of status changes that can get reported by
> > UAs, we might want to think about increasing the retry count on
> > these commands up from 3 at some point.)
> >
> Hmm. _Actually_, we're not getting _more_ UAs (neither the number
> nor the situation at which UAs are being send has changed).
> It's just that we're trying to _use_ UAs so these things pop up.
> But yeah, raising the number or retries to eg 5 is probably a good idea.
Yeah, or maybe add a time limit to we don't drag out the boot time.
We can do this later, though, I'm fine with your patch as it is.
>
> > Reviewed-by: Ewan D. Milne <emi...@redhat.com>
> >
> Cheers,
>
> Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
