On 11/17/20 8:38 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 17/11/20 07:55, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 11/16/20 11:00 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 16/11/20 20:05, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
+ if (sreq->host_status == SCSI_HOST_OK) {
+ SCSISense sense;
+
+ sreq->status =
scsi_sense_from_host_status(sreq->host_status, &sense);
+ if (sreq->status == CHECK_CONDITION) {
+ scsi_req_build_sense(sreq, sense);
+ }
+ }
Should be != of course.
No.
scsi_req_build_sense() transfers the sense code from the second
argument
into a proper SCSI sense. Which is only set if the status is
CHECK_CONDITION...
I mean sreq->host_status != SCSI_HOST_OK. I might be wrong, but
every other HBA is using that...
Bah. Yes, of course, you are right.
Shall I resubmit? Or how is the process nowadays?
Depends on how busy and grumpy I am. :) Since we're right in the middle
of the freeze, let me send a RFC patch for Linux to clean up DID_* a
little bit.
What's your intention there? I do have (of course) a larger patchset for
revisiting the SCSI status codes, so I could resubmit those portions
relating to DID_ codes ...
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect
h...@suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
