Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 11:20:50 +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: <19990321112050.05515@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199903210039.RAA20800@narnia.plutotech.com>; from Justin T. Gibbs on Sat, Mar 20, 1999 at 05:39:47PM -0700 References: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9903200922300.32608-100000@feral-gw> <199903210039.RAA20800@narnia.plutotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > The only thing I recall about this was whether we should return > ENOSPC or continually return 0 on EOM/EOT. If we decide to simply > "pause" at EOM (i.e. return a short write or a 0 length write), > then this is fine by me. So we are in violent agreement then? :) > I still believe that returning a real > error at EOT is correct. I could live with ENOSPC, but only iff no data have been written at all in a particular request. Iff something has been written, the `short write' is IMHO the correct way that's compatible with other usage of write(2) throughout Unix, so the caller can be notified that their request only partially succeeded (but succeeded so far). > dump understands ENOSPC, and should work correctly if ENOSPC > is still returned at EOM or EOT. Probably. I think part of the problem dump's algorithm doesn't (didn't?) is that EIO has been reported, as opposed to ENOSPC. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) 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?19990321112050.05515>