> The SCSI error reporting really ought to include a simple interpretation
> of the error for end users ("The drive doesn't support this command" "A
> sector's data got lost" "The drive timed out" "The drive failed" "The
> drive is entirely gone"). There's too much similarity between the message
> you get when you try a SMART test that doesn't apply to the drive and what
> you get when the drive is broken.
That would be the SCSI verbose messages option. I think the Eric
Youngdale consortium added it about Linux 1.2. Nowdays its always built
that way.
> And it's possible that the error recovery is suboptimal in some cases. It
> seems to like resetting drives too much; perhaps if it keeps seeing the
> same problem and resetting the drive, it should decide that the drive's
> error reporting is just bad and just ignore that error like the old IDE
> did (but, in this case, after saying what it's doing).
Nothing like casually praying the users data hasn't gone for a walk is
there. If we don't act on them the users don't report them until
something really bad occurs so that isn't an option.
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
