James Smart wrote:
Is this destined for upstream (2.6.16 or later) ? If it is, I don't see why
this change is needed, as:
- As lpfc doesn't support /proc interface, it never initializes the fields
in the host template, so proc_info and proc_name will be null.
- scsi_proc_hostdir_add() validates that sht->proc_info is non-null before
attempting to use sht->proc_name.
- the only reference in scsi_sysfs properly deals with a null name pointer
(e.g. the proc_name is an empty string). Which seems the right thing to
do if there is no proc entry.
That said - the change is trivial, so I really don't mind if it goes in.
Hi James,
It's not necessarily "destined". It's in the Ubuntu kernel tree and I'm
in the process of scrubbing thru their kernel tree to see what (if anything)
should/could be considered for adding to the mainline kernel tree.
If their patch justification is incorrect, then it's definitely not
destined.
Thanks,
~Randy
Randy Dunlap wrote:
[UBUNTU:drivers/scsi/lpfc] Add missing proc_name entry to
scsi_host_table.
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/bcollins/ubuntu-dapper.git;a=commitdiff;h=8e3174d462c06d45138ff7a9a25667a7347ff5ab
According to a few people, the scsi proc interface should die, but sysfs
still uses some proc_* entries from scsi_host_table.
The Emulex driver needs to export at least proc_name.
Signed-off-by: Fabio M. Di Nitto <fabbione@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_scsi.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertion(+)
--- linux-2617-rc6g7.orig/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_scsi.c
+++ linux-2617-rc6g7/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_scsi.c
@@ -1269,6 +1269,7 @@ struct scsi_host_template lpfc_template
.slave_alloc = lpfc_slave_alloc,
.slave_configure = lpfc_slave_configure,
.slave_destroy = lpfc_slave_destroy,
+ .proc_name = "lpfc",
.this_id = -1,
.sg_tablesize = LPFC_SG_SEG_CNT,
.cmd_per_lun = LPFC_CMD_PER_LUN,
-
: 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
