> On 11/6/12 7:06 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > Why is this necessary? As I read the reg set assignment code, it finds > > a free bit in the 64 bit register and uses that ... which can never be > > greater than 64 so there's no need for the check. > > This patch just tries to be more defensive for bit(reg_set) with a > broken reg_set value. I agree with you that it's not that necessary. Agree with James, and just need to do NOT operation one time > > > The other two look OK (probably redone as a single patch with a stable > > tag), but I'd like the input of the mvs people since it seems with the > > current code, we only use 32 bit regsets and probably hang if we go over > > that. The bug fix is either to enable the full 64 if it works, or > > possibly cap at 32 ... what works with all released devices? > > Thanks for reviewing. Yeah we'd better to wait for the input from > the mvs people. About patch 3, I check the ffz code and found it will check ~0 conditions. -- 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
