From owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 16 20:15:22 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C941106566C for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:15:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mj@feral.com) Received: from ns1.feral.com (ns1.feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074F38FC08 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:15:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.221.2] (remotevpn [192.168.221.2]) by ns1.feral.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5GKF1Se055639 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:15:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mj@feral.com) Message-ID: <4C1930BF.3090408@feral.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:14:55 -0700 From: Matthew Jacob Organization: Feral Software User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org References: <51DD9715-89B2-4058-A4FE-7097603013CC@averesystems.com> In-Reply-To: <51DD9715-89B2-4058-A4FE-7097603013CC@averesystems.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender DNS name whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (ns1.feral.com [192.168.221.1]); Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Overlapped Commands error X-BeenThere: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SCSI subsystem List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:15:22 -0000 > Can anyone point me to where in the stack the command identifier is assigned? I see where MPT assigns tags in target mode, but it's the initiator in this case. Any advice? > > The mpt f/w assigns tags. Don't really know what happened here. > Also, is CAM doing the right thing by retrying? scsi_error_action() in cam/scsi/scsi_all.c always sets the retry bit on aborted commands, even though the spec quoted above makes it sound like this should be a fatal error ("This is considered a catastrophic failure on the part of the SCSI initiator device"). Should scsi_error_action() be looking at the Additional Sense Code? > Not really, IMO. It's up to each periph driver to decide whether commands are statefull or can be retried with impunity.