On Mon, 11 May 2009 08:48:53 +0900
Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello, Boaz.
>
> Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>
> > Hi Tejun, I've carefully reviewed these files which I know more
> > about. The drivers/block files I've skipped, since I'm not familiar
> > with this code.
> >
> > Except a small fallout, it looks very good. See some comments plus
> > Ack/review below
>
> Thanks a lot for reviewing it closely. It's really nice to have
> careful extra pair of eyes on the changes. :-)
>
> >> --- a/drivers/message/fusion/mptsas.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/message/fusion/mptsas.c
> >> @@ -1357,8 +1357,7 @@ static int mptsas_smp_handler(struct Scsi_Host *shost, struct sas_rphy *rphy,
> >> smprep = (SmpPassthroughReply_t *)ioc->sas_mgmt.reply;
> >> memcpy(req->sense, smprep, sizeof(*smprep));
> >> req->sense_len = sizeof(*smprep);
> >> - req->data_len = 0;
> >> - rsp->data_len -= smprep->ResponseDataLength;
> >> + rsp->resid_len = rsp->data_len - smprep->ResponseDataLength;
> >> } else {
> >> printk(MYIOC_s_ERR_FMT "%s: smp passthru reply failed to be returned\n",
> >> ioc->name, __func__);
> >
> > I think original code was assuming full residual count on the else side
> > (not MPT_IOCTL_STATUS_RF_VALID). So maybe add:
> >
> > + rsp->resid_len = rsp->data_len;
>
> Does resid_len make any sense w/ failed requests? I think we would be
> better off with declaring residual count to be undefined on request
> failure. Is there any place which depends on it?
IIRC, I wrote the code. I think that this doesn't matter but it's
better not to change the behavior unless Eric ack on this change
(maybe LSI has some management binary that assume this behavior though
it's unlikely).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
