On 12/12/2017 07:25 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 08:01 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> On 12/12/2017 01:00 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 11:14 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
@@ -541,6 +544,20 @@ static int alua_rtpg(struct scsi_device *sdev, struct
On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 08:01 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 12/12/2017 01:00 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 11:14 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > > @@ -541,6 +544,20 @@ static int alua_rtpg(struct scsi_device *sdev,
> > > struct alua_port_group *pg)
> > > retval = subm
On 12/12/2017 01:00 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 11:14 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> @@ -541,6 +544,20 @@ static int alua_rtpg(struct scsi_device *sdev, struct
>> alua_port_group *pg)
>> retval = submit_rtpg(sdev, buff, bufflen, &sense_hdr, pg->flags);
>>
>> if
On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 11:14 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> @@ -541,6 +544,20 @@ static int alua_rtpg(struct scsi_device *sdev, struct
> alua_port_group *pg)
> retval = submit_rtpg(sdev, buff, bufflen, &sense_hdr, pg->flags);
>
> if (retval) {
> + /*
> + * If
From: Hannes Reinecke
For hardware only supporting active/optimized there's no point in
ever re-issuing RTPG as the only new state we can possibly read is
active/optimized.
This avoid spurious errors during path failover on such arrays.
Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke
---
drivers/scsi/device_ha
5 matches
Mail list logo