From: Paul Menzel [mailto:pmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Subject: Re: [smartpqi updates PATCH V2 09/11] smartpqi: fix duplicate device nodes for tape changers Dear Kevin, dear Don, > Our controller FW lists both LUNs in the RPL results. Please document the firmware version (and controller) you tested with in the commit message. DON: Done in V3, thanks for your review. Shortly describing the implementation (new struct member ignore_device) would be nice. DON: Don in V3, thanks for your review. > u8 rescan : 1; > + u8 ignore_device : 1; Why not type bool? Don: They both take the same amount of memory and since the other members are also u8, the new member was also u8 for consistency. > - device->lun = sdev->lun; > - device->target_lun_valid = true; Off topic, with `u8 target_lun_valid : 1`, why is `true` used. Don: Has the same behavior, and carried forward from other member fields. > + if (device->target_lun_valid) { > + device->ignore_device = true; > + } else { > + device->target = sdev_id(sdev); > + device->lun = sdev->lun; > + device->target_lun_valid = true; > + } If the LUN should be ignored, is it actually valid? Why not extend target_lun_valid and add a third option (enums?) to ignore it? Don: The reason is that it takes advantage of the order the devices are added and how slave_alloc and slave_configure fit into this order. > + return device->devtype == TYPE_TAPE || device->devtype == > +TYPE_MEDIUM_CHANGER; Why also check for TYPE_TAPE? The function name should be updated then? Don: Because out tape changer consisted of the changer and one or more tape units and both were duplicated. > static int pqi_slave_configure(struct scsi_device *sdev) > + if (pqi_is_tape_changer_device(device) && device->ignore_device) { > + rc = -ENXIO; > + device->ignore_device = false; I’d add a `return -ENXIO` here, and remove the variable. Don: This works in conjunction with slave_alloc and is needed. > Kind regards, Paul Thanks for your review. Appreciate the inspection. Don and Kevin
