From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 337B4C43334 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 07:23:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234332AbiFTHXP (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jun 2022 03:23:15 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58890 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239292AbiFTHXP (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jun 2022 03:23:15 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 899E3E0BE; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 00:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id D4DB868AA6; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 09:23:10 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 09:23:10 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Hannes Reinecke Cc: michael.christie@oracle.com, Keith Busch , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, snitzer@kernel.org, hch@lst.de, axboe@kernel.dk, martin.petersen@oracle.com, james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, target-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] block, nvme: Add error for reservation conflicts. Message-ID: <20220620072310.GI11418@lst.de> References: <20220603065536.5641-1-michael.christie@oracle.com> <20220603065536.5641-10-michael.christie@oracle.com> <6cc818cf-fac4-d485-ea9d-0b8597f24a33@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jun 05, 2022 at 11:42:11AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > Well ... we tried to find a generic error for reservation failure, as we > thought that reservation failure was too SCSI specific. > And we wanted the error to describe what the resulting handling should be, > not what the cause was. Hence we ended up with BLK_STS_NEXUS. > > But turns out that our initial assumption wasn't valid, and that > reservations are a general concept. So by all means, rename BLK_STS_NEXUS > to BLK_STS_RSV_CONFLICT to make it clear what this error is about. I think think this is a good ida, but we'll need to involve the s390 dasd folks. Maybe do this as a separate prep patch? While thinking about DASD I think it would benefit from returning the blk_status_t from ->free_cp insted of the hand crafted conversion as well. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E38FC43334 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 07:23:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-646-wIiYF8spOg2SIYFJJM4PDA-1; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 03:23:19 -0400 X-MC-Unique: wIiYF8spOg2SIYFJJM4PDA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E2B629ABA3B; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 07:23:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (unknown [10.30.29.100]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD5A32166B26; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 07:23:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7667C194706D; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 07:23:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58971947069 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 07:23:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id 6BB5A112131B; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 07:23:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast10.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.26]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67AF01121314 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 07:23:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 509D61C18265 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 07:23:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-663-C4iUfHBfOJKF9tLDtcl2wQ-1; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 03:23:14 -0400 X-MC-Unique: C4iUfHBfOJKF9tLDtcl2wQ-1 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id D4DB868AA6; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 09:23:10 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 09:23:10 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Hannes Reinecke Message-ID: <20220620072310.GI11418@lst.de> References: <20220603065536.5641-1-michael.christie@oracle.com> <20220603065536.5641-10-michael.christie@oracle.com> <6cc818cf-fac4-d485-ea9d-0b8597f24a33@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Mimecast-Impersonation-Protect: Policy=CLT - Impersonation Protection Definition; Similar Internal Domain=false; Similar Monitored External Domain=false; Custom External Domain=false; Mimecast External Domain=false; Newly Observed Domain=false; Internal User Name=false; Custom Display Name List=false; Reply-to Address Mismatch=false; Targeted Threat Dictionary=false; Mimecast Threat Dictionary=false; Custom Threat Dictionary=false X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.3 Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 09/11] block, nvme: Add error for reservation conflicts. X-BeenThere: dm-devel@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: device-mapper development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, martin.petersen@oracle.com, snitzer@kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, target-devel@vger.kernel.org, Keith Busch , hch@lst.de, michael.christie@oracle.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Sender: "dm-devel" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.6 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, Jun 05, 2022 at 11:42:11AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > Well ... we tried to find a generic error for reservation failure, as we > thought that reservation failure was too SCSI specific. > And we wanted the error to describe what the resulting handling should be, > not what the cause was. Hence we ended up with BLK_STS_NEXUS. > > But turns out that our initial assumption wasn't valid, and that > reservations are a general concept. So by all means, rename BLK_STS_NEXUS > to BLK_STS_RSV_CONFLICT to make it clear what this error is about. I think think this is a good ida, but we'll need to involve the s390 dasd folks. Maybe do this as a separate prep patch? While thinking about DASD I think it would benefit from returning the blk_status_t from ->free_cp insted of the hand crafted conversion as well. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel