On 03/09/2011 04:14 PM, scameron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 01:27:53PM +0100, Tomas Henzl wrote: > >> On 03/09/2011 12:10 AM, Stephen M. Cameron wrote: >> >>> From: Stephen M. Cameron <scameron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> This attribute, requested by Redhat, allows kexec-tools to know >>> whether the controller can honor the reset_devices kernel parameter >>> >> > [...] > > >> and actually reset the controller. For kdump to work properly it >> Hi Stephen, >> >> thanks for posting this. >> Some of the devices are served by the cciss driver by default - I guess >> a very similar patch for cciss is needed too. >> Shouldn't be the 0x409C0E11 and 0x409D0E11 (640x boards) also added to the list? >> (And the 'unknown' devices.) >> > There's a bit of a fine point here regarding the unknown devices. > > If hpsa_allow_any=1 module parameter is set, then the unknown device > is considered to be resettable (as it's unknown, it's obviously not > on the list of known unresettable controllers). If hpsa_allow_any > is not set, then the unknown devices are not reset -- and the driver > doesn't even try to do anything with them. > > So, the patch is consistent with this, in that if hpsa_allow_any is > not set, then there won't be any corresponding sysfs entries at all > for those devices because those devices won't be service by hpsa > at all. And if hpsa_allow_any is set, then those devices will be > marked as resettable, and the reset code will attempt to reset them. > > I think we've got all the unresettable devices listed (when I add the 6400 > boards to the list of course) and I think we're going to try pretty hard to > make sure new boards are resettable, so, that's probably ok, right? > > Or, do you want to be extra safe, and say that new, unknown boards are assumed > to be non-resettable? (Since new boards generally mean driver changes to make > sure the driver knows those boards, that's not such a big deal -- except for > people who want to continue to use old OSes on new hardware, which, there seem > to be quite a few of those people.) > My comment has targeted the new unknown boards, to resolve this it would be easier to have a list of resettable controllers. (complement to what it is now). Fact is, that I forgot that a hpsa_allow_any option has to be set before you can use an 'unknown' controller and combined with your promise > we're going to try pretty hard to make sure new boards are resettable I'm fine with the original approach. -- tomash > I think my preference would be to assume that unknown boards are resettable > if hpsa_allow_any=1, and assume unresettable otherwise (and for purposes of > sysfs attributes, this is what the patch already does.) > > -- steve > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: 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 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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
