08:21:58 <tsoome> spicywolf that will most likely not produce *some specific* scsi errors. If you want to create specific errors, then you would need to create method to inject such errors.
12:40:04 <spicywolf> true.
14:03:05 <spicywolf> but even accounting for that I think I'd need some specific hardware or really good software to test luxadm.  Do we have a way to test luxadm?  I definitely don't have a SunFire 880 or any other FibreChannel Arbitrated Loop devices.  :p
18:38:20 <richlowe> you're going to be unable to test luxadm
18:38:28 <richlowe> we should probably delete it, but I have lost track of what it supports
18:38:38 <richlowe> definitely A5000, no idea after that
18:39:08 <richlowe> it might also have been SPARC only, which would make deleting it easier :)
19:10:25 <sommerfeld> I think we can accept that the luxadm change in https://code.illumos.org/c/illumos-gate/+/4345 is much more likely than not to improve things.  
19:10:27 <fenix> → CODE REVIEW 4345: 17536 overflow checks ruined by int promotion 17540 kmdb should be built as c99 (NEW) | https://www.illumos.org/issues/17536
19:10:39 <sommerfeld> oops, wrong link
19:10:57 <sommerfeld> https://code.illumos.org/c/illumos-gate/+/4351
19:10:57 <fenix> → CODE REVIEW 4351: 17516 Some readable output transposes newline and full stop (NEW) | https://www.illumos.org/issues/17516
19:56:07 <richlowe> sommerfeld: right, I just mean in general I don't know of any way to really use it anymore