lpfc and qla2x00 have something similar. I chose the driver default instead of
1. Is setting it to one correct for the api?
static void
lpfc_set_rport_loss_tmo(struct fc_rport *rport, uint32_t timeout)
{
/*
* The driver doesn't have a per-target timeout setting. Set
* this value globally. lpfc_nodev_tmo should be greater then 0.
*/
if (timeout)
lpfc_nodev_tmo = timeout;
else
lpfc_nodev_tmo = 1;
rport->dev_loss_tmo = lpfc_nodev_tmo + 5;
}
Mike
James Smart wrote:
>
>> +static void
>> +mptfc_set_rport_loss_tmo(struct fc_rport *rport, uint32_t timeout)
>> +{
>> + if (timeout > 0)
>> + rport->dev_loss_tmo = timeout;
>> + else
>> + rport->dev_loss_tmo = mptfc_dev_loss_tmo;
>> +}
>
> The only function of the if-test here is checking for 0 or >0, as
> the fc transport ensures it is nothing else. What bothers me is
> if the value is 0, then you are overriding it with the mptfc default
> value without any warning or error report to the user.
>
> Perhaps we should be dealing with a zero value differently in the
> transport.
>
> The rest looks ok...
>
> -- james s
> -
> : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
