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,
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
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,
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
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
rship.com>,
> linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, "Hannes Reinecke" <h...@suse.de>, "Hannes
> Reinecke" <h...@suse.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 4:20:53 AM
> Subject: [PATCH] scsi: do not print 'reservation conflict' for TEST UNIT READY
>
> S
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
7 matches
Mail list logo
