On Jul 2, Matthew Jacob wrote
> Okay... I think I see where we differ on this. I'm saying "If you have
> an
> error handler, and are returning saying that you didn't really have an
> error, don't print any sense information unless SCSIDEBUG is set".
> You're
> saying "If you specify an error handler, it has to either handle all
> error conditions and return 0 or errno, or explicitly punt to the
> default
> error handler, in which case you shouldn't beef about it printing
> messages,
> shooting the user thread through the head, etc....".
> 
> Hmm. Okay. I'll buy that. It means maybe a bit more code duplication,
> but
> it does make more sense.
> 

I'm not sure this means more code duplication: If the semantic you propose is
fully implemented, it would mean the generic error handler would never
print the sense if there is a device-specific error handler, thus you
would have to print the sense in each specific error handler ...

--
Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI.           Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
--