Re: [PATCHv2]sd: Don't treat succeeded SYNC as error

2016-05-12 Thread Jinpu Wang
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 5:05 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 23:43 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: >> On Wed, 2016-05-11 at 08:21 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > [..] >> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c >> > index 7cb66b0..68c0e74 100644 >> > --- a/

Re: [PATCHv2]sd: Don't treat succeeded SYNC as error

2016-05-11 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 23:43 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2016-05-11 at 08:21 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: [..] > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c > > index 7cb66b0..68c0e74 100644 > > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c > > @@

Re: [PATCHv2]sd: Don't treat succeeded SYNC as error

2016-05-11 Thread Jinpu Wang
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:00 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 17:46 +0200, Jinpu Wang wrote: >> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:08 PM, James Bottomley >> wrote: > [...] >> > Actually, I think this is symptomatic of a much bigger problem. >> > Now that the FS can send zero length non

Re: [PATCHv2]sd: Don't treat succeeded SYNC as error

2016-05-10 Thread James Bottomley
On Wed, 2016-05-11 at 08:21 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 05/10/2016 05:08 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 16:48 +0200, Jinpu Wang wrote: > > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Jinpu Wang < > > > jinpu.w...@profitbricks.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Ji

Re: [PATCHv2]sd: Don't treat succeeded SYNC as error

2016-05-10 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 05/10/2016 05:08 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 16:48 +0200, Jinpu Wang wrote: >> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Jinpu Wang < >> jinpu.w...@profitbricks.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Jinpu Wang < >>> jinpu.w...@profitbricks.com> wrote: On Mon, May 2, 2

Re: [PATCHv2]sd: Don't treat succeeded SYNC as error

2016-05-10 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 17:46 +0200, Jinpu Wang wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:08 PM, James Bottomley > wrote: [...] > > Actually, I think this is symptomatic of a much bigger problem. > > Now that the FS can send zero length non BLOCK_PC request, we're > > not treating failure correctly. bl

Re: [PATCHv2]sd: Don't treat succeeded SYNC as error

2016-05-10 Thread Jinpu Wang
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:08 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 16:48 +0200, Jinpu Wang wrote: >> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Jinpu Wang < >> jinpu.w...@profitbricks.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Jinpu Wang < >> > jinpu.w...@profitbricks.com> wrote: >> > > On

Re: [PATCHv2]sd: Don't treat succeeded SYNC as error

2016-05-10 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 16:48 +0200, Jinpu Wang wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Jinpu Wang < > jinpu.w...@profitbricks.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Jinpu Wang < > > jinpu.w...@profitbricks.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:44 PM, James Bottomley < > > > j...@linux

Re: [PATCHv2]sd: Don't treat succeeded SYNC as error

2016-05-10 Thread Jinpu Wang
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Jinpu Wang wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Jinpu Wang > wrote: >> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:44 PM, James Bottomley >> wrote: >>> On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 12:05 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: On 04/29/2016 02:49 PM, Jinpu Wang wrote: > Hi, all

Re: [PATCHv2]sd: Don't treat succeeded SYNC as error

2016-05-09 Thread Jinpu Wang
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Jinpu Wang wrote: > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:44 PM, James Bottomley > wrote: >> On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 12:05 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >>> On 04/29/2016 02:49 PM, Jinpu Wang wrote: >>> > Hi, all >>> > >>> > We hit IO error on fsync, it turns out was because sd

Re: [PATCHv2]sd: Don't treat succeeded SYNC as error

2016-05-04 Thread Jinpu Wang
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:44 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 12:05 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >> On 04/29/2016 02:49 PM, Jinpu Wang wrote: >> > Hi, all >> > >> > We hit IO error on fsync, it turns out was because sd treat >> > succeeded >> > SYNC as error. From what I checked

Re: [PATCHv2]sd: Don't treat succeeded SYNC as error

2016-05-02 Thread James Bottomley
On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 06:44 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 12:05 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > On 04/29/2016 02:49 PM, Jinpu Wang wrote: > > > Hi, all > > > > > > We hit IO error on fsync, it turns out was because sd treat > > > succeeded > > > SYNC as error. From what I

Re: [PATCHv2]sd: Don't treat succeeded SYNC as error

2016-05-02 Thread James Bottomley
On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 12:05 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 04/29/2016 02:49 PM, Jinpu Wang wrote: > > Hi, all > > > > We hit IO error on fsync, it turns out was because sd treat > > succeeded > > SYNC as error. From what I checked in SBC spec there is no > > indication > > we should fail IO in

Re: [PATCHv2]sd: Don't treat succeeded SYNC as error

2016-05-02 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 04/29/2016 02:49 PM, Jinpu Wang wrote: > Hi, all > > We hit IO error on fsync, it turns out was because sd treat succeeded > SYNC as error. From what I checked in SBC spec there is no indication > we should fail IO in this case, so we create this patch. > > > Best Regards, > > Jack Wang > >

[PATCHv2]sd: Don't treat succeeded SYNC as error

2016-04-29 Thread Jinpu Wang
Hi, all We hit IO error on fsync, it turns out was because sd treat succeeded SYNC as error. From what I checked in SBC spec there is no indication we should fail IO in this case, so we create this patch. Best Regards, Jack Wang v2: No change on patch itself, only resend in body as suggested b