From: Sakurai Hiroomi <sakurai_hiro@soft.fujitsu.com>
To: "Salyzyn, Mark" <mark_salyzyn@adaptec.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
hiroomi sakurai <sakurai_hiro@soft.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG][RFC][PATCH] dpt_i2o driver in 2.4
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:21:54 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0IAL00GBAWF2YH@simsproxy3.soft.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <60807403EABEB443939A5A7AA8A7458BA3C4AB@otce2k01.adaptec.com>
Thank you Mark,
I appreciate your quick response.
Best Regards
Hiroomi Sakurai
"Salyzyn, Mark" <mark_salyzyn@adaptec.com> wrote:
> I am pouring through the inspection. The Adaptec branch (which works in
> both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels, and in 64 bit architectures) of the driver has
> been patched to some of these suggestions and has been included for your
> information.
>
> 1) The driver is capable of instantiating a subset of the available
> adapters, doing the adpt_i2o_sys_shutdown and/or returning 0 on a single
> failure to instantiate would break that feature. The Adapter has not
> gone through startup until after adpt_i2o_activate_hba, there is no
> reason to do an adpt_i2o_sys_shutdown. The linux community may not wish
> that a driver instantiate a subset of the hardware without failing, so
> your point may be entirely valid; I am hoping for some community
> comment.
>
> 2) A valid concern, but the architectural decision at this point was
> that adpt_inquiry would never fail. And if it did, it still did not
> represent a reason to fail the adapter in the absence of all other
> failures. It was an `informational' request for an adapter name. We had
> versions of (internal) firmware that failed this call and still
> functioned properly in all other respects.
>
> 3) Our latest driver has this patch in another form regarding the check
> for pScsi_dev null. This patch is a requirement; we have seen this
> failure mode.
>
> 4) Good catch, I have added your patch that prevents falling through to
> the instantiating code when exceeding the maximum number of adapters to
> the Adaptec branch. I agree, a better choice is to have no limits, but I
> was bit once by a pci bus that had *multitudes* of the adapter
> replicated :-) The management applications have the same hard-coded
> limit (that is no reason for the driver to match it though)
>
> 5) Good catch, I had added your patch that checks the id parameter.
>
> 6) Good catch. We have never experienced this possible data corruption
> from the adapter, but one can never be too paranoid in this case since
> it is a subsystem that could misbehave. Checking the bus_no and scsi_id
> is highly recommended and has been added to the Adaptec Branch of the
> driver (except that I switched to the C style comment).
>
> 7) Out latest driver already has this patch in another form regarding
> the check for pScsi_dev null. This patch is a requirement; we have seen
> this failure mode.
>
> 8) It is not a failure to be unable to acquire the blinkLED or debug
> buffers from the adapter. By itself, this failure does not justify
> failing the adapter, especially since there are older (DPT PM2554)
> adapters that did not have this scalar.
>
> Sincerely -- Mark Salyzyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Salyzyn, Mark
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 8:34 AM
> To: 'Sakurai Hiroomi'
> Subject: RE: [BUG][RFC][PATCH] dpt_i2o driver in 2.4
>
> The driver Adaptec has in its maintained branch is enclosed. I will take
> the inspection report and apply it to this driver.
>
> Sincerely -- Mark Salyzyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org
> [mailto:linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sakurai Hiroomi
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 12:41 AM
> To: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: hiroomi sakurai
> Subject: [BUG][RFC][PATCH] dpt_i2o driver in 2.4
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> Our Linux server uses adaptec ASR-2010S and we are using dpt_i2o driver.
> To raise the reliability of the server, we reviewd the dpt_i2o driver.
> # The version of driver is 2.4 Build 5 in linux-2.4.28.
>
> We found some problems and questions.
>
> Please see the attached the dpt_i2o_problem_document.txt about the
> problems.
> And also I made a patch agains the driver(dpt_i2o.diff).
>
> I'm not participated in the linux-scsi mailing list.
> Please reply to the following addresses.
>
> E-Mail : sakurai_hiro@soft.fujitsu.com
>
> Best Regards
> Hiroomi Sakurai
>
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
サーバシステム事業本部
Linuxソフトウェア開発統括部
櫻井 宏臣 (Hiroomi Sakurai)
E-mail:sakurai_hiro@soft.fujitsu.com
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-20 8:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-18 15:11 [BUG][RFC][PATCH] dpt_i2o driver in 2.4 Salyzyn, Mark
2005-01-20 8:21 ` Sakurai Hiroomi [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-01-18 5:41 Sakurai Hiroomi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0IAL00GBAWF2YH@simsproxy3.soft.fujitsu.com \
--to=sakurai_hiro@soft.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark_salyzyn@adaptec.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.