On 08/09/2017 06:08 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> index 0962fd5..c3aea06 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c
>> @@ -1100,6 +1100,8 @@ static int alua_bus_attach(struct scsi_device *sdev)
>> err = alua_initialize(sdev, h);
>> if (err == SCSI_DH_NOMEM)
>> ret = -ENOMEM;
>> + if (err == SCSI_DH_DEV_UNSUPP)
>> + ret = -ENODEV;
>> if (err != SCSI_DH_OK && err != SCSI_DH_DEV_OFFLINED)
>> goto failed;
>
> This screams for a switch statement..
>
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_dh.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_dh.c
>> @@ -133,8 +133,9 @@ static int scsi_dh_handler_attach(struct scsi_device
>> *sdev,
>>
>> error = scsi_dh->attach(sdev);
>> if (error) {
>> - sdev_printk(KERN_ERR, sdev, "%s: Attach failed (%d)\n",
>> - scsi_dh->name, error);
>> + if (error != -ENODEV)
>> + sdev_printk(KERN_ERR, sdev, "%s: Attach failed (%d)\n",
>> + scsi_dh->name, error);
>> module_put(scsi_dh->module);
>
> OTOH why don't we just return the SCSI_DH_ values from ->attach?
>
Hmm. Not a bad idea. Let's see how it turns out.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking
[email protected] +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
