Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:41:06 +0200 From: Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: propose: change some sense codes handling Message-ID: <ADD4B5D3-11C8-412A-A130-2BD03ECEEFAC@sarenet.es> In-Reply-To: <4D9B1A9E.4040007@FreeBSD.org> References: <4D9AF9B7.9030107@FreeBSD.org> <D10B0D62-E11E-445C-B9FA-DB4276F678B0@sarenet.es> <4D9B0DF7.8020104@FreeBSD.org> <4D0D7E78-2491-4D45-9DDE-58E360C6BA06@sarenet.es> <4D9B1A9E.4040007@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 5, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 05/04/2011 16:24 Borja Marcos said the following: >> I forgot. Of course it's not harmelss at all. That's the problem of = being multi-tasking ;) >>=20 >> Reset or power on could indicate that any configuration written to = the device (mode pages) have gone back to the default values as well. = So, even with no outstanding operations, I would treat it with caution. >>=20 >> And again, if you power cycle a device from which you have = filesystems attached I find it safer to treat it as an I/O error, = unmounting the filesystems, checking, etc, etc. >=20 > Sure. So, still why "Power on occurred" or "Device internal reset" = should be > SS_RDEF while "Power on, reset, or bus device reset occurred" should = be SS_FATAL? Seems to be safer to treat it as fatal, don't you think? Borja.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ADD4B5D3-11C8-412A-A130-2BD03ECEEFAC>