Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 17:38:16 +0100 From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: scsi@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 3.1-STABLE: nrsa0 T4000 doesn't honor "no rewind"? SCSI errs in logs Message-ID: <19990319173816.E284@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9903111013310.28526-100000@feral-gw>; from Matthew Jacob on Thu, Mar 11, 1999 at 10:19:21AM -0800 References: <m10L9s4-000I0zC@TomQNX.tomqnx.com> <Pine.LNX.4.04.9903111013310.28526-100000@feral-gw>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Matthew Jacob wrote: > There was a lot of discussion about this some months back. The > consensus (which I didn't agree with) was that EIO should still be > propagated at early warning (the EOM bit in Sense Data- not the > VOLUME OVERFLOW which is hard physical EOT) rather than using a > (possibly deferred) residual count to an I/O operation to provide > the signification. Btw., i don't agree to this either, and we've had this before. If some data have been written, a `short write' should be returned to the application, and no error set (yet - unless the application attempts to continue writing). Only iff no data have been written at all, an error should be flagged (and that was my part of a compromise in a previous discussion with Justin -- i originally thought an error should never be flagged, just a `0 return', but i agree i've been wrong in this). Fixing this will automatically unbreak dump -a or multivolume tar. -- J"org Wunsch Unix support engineer joerg_wunsch@interface-business.de http://www.interface-business.de/~j To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990319173816.E284>