Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 09:24:24 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de> Cc: scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 3.1-STABLE: nrsa0 T4000 doesn't honor "no rewind"? SCSI errs in logs Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9903200922300.32608-100000@feral-gw> In-Reply-To: <19990319173816.E284@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > 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). No- I think you're right on this but we've been overrulled. Did you really have an agreement with Justin that the only time an error is returned is if no data was writtent at all? I can guarantee you that you'll always write up to hard EOT if this is the case. > Fixing this will automatically unbreak dump -a or multivolume tar. Is there a PR filed on this? 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?Pine.LNX.4.04.9903200922300.32608-100000>