On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 05:20:46PM -0800, James Smart wrote:
>
> NVME Initiator: Base modifications
>
> This is part B of parts A..F.
>
> Part B is limited to lpfc_attr.c: lpfc attribute modifications
>
> *********
>
> Refer to Part A for a description of base modifications
>
> Signed-off-by: Dick Kennedy <dick.kenn...@broadcom.com>
> Signed-off-by: James Smart <james.sm...@broadcom.com>
> ---
[...]
> + len += snprintf(buf + len, PAGE_SIZE - len,
> + "%s%d WWPN x%llx WWNN x%llx DID x%06x %s\n",
> + "NVME LPORT lpfc",
Is it the lack of coffee or should it be
"NVME LPORT lpfc%d WWPN x%llx WWNN x%llx DID x%06x %s\n"
I think you're doing it to not hit the 80 chars limit, but then there are
way more offenders than that one, so...
> + phba->brd_no,
> + wwn_to_u64(vport->fc_portname.u.wwn),
> + wwn_to_u64(vport->fc_nodename.u.wwn),
> + localport->port_id, statep);
[...]
> +int
> +lpfc_emptyq_wait(struct lpfc_hba *phba, struct list_head *q, spinlock_t
> *lock)
> +{
> + int cnt = 0;
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(lock);
> + while (!list_empty(q)) {
> + spin_unlock_irq(lock);
> + msleep(20);
> + if (cnt++ > 250) { /* 5 secs */
> + lpfc_printf_log(phba, KERN_WARNING, LOG_INIT,
> + "0466 %s %s\n",
> + "Outstanding IO when ",
> + "bringing Adapter offline\n");
> + return 0;
> + }
> + spin_lock_irq(lock);
> + }
> + spin_unlock_irq(lock);
> + return 1;
> +}
> +
Aren't you using lpc_emptyq_wait() in patches prior to that already? This
breaks git bisect. Pleas test-build (ideally + checkpatch and sparse/smatch)
each patch in the series individually.
[...]
Thanks,
Johannes
--
Johannes Thumshirn Storage
jthumsh...@suse.de +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
