From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9FFC433B4 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:17:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B1F601FC for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:17:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236415AbhD1HS2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Apr 2021 03:18:28 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:47040 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229478AbhD1HS1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Apr 2021 03:18:27 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 805AFAF38; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:17:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 09:17:42 +0200 From: Daniel Wagner To: Arun Easi Cc: Roman Bolshakov , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, GR-QLogic-Storage-Upstream@marvell.com, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Hannes Reinecke , Nilesh Javali , James Smart Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [RFC] qla2xxx: Add dev_loss_tmo kernel module options Message-ID: <20210428071742.rvgogvzigj2yypx2@beryllium.lan> References: <20210419100014.47144-1-dwagner@suse.de> <20210420182830.fbipix3l7hwlyfx3@beryllium.lan> <20210421075659.dwaz7gt6hyqlzpo4@beryllium.lan> <20210427095131.zf6c4siewnrhv7qd@beryllium.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Hi Arun, On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 03:35:47PM -0700, Arun Easi wrote: > > I am sure this can be done in a more elegant way. Anyway, I am testing > > this right now, the first 30 minutes look good... > > > > Looks ok to me. Just keep in mind that, with this you'd be setting all > instances of pn-XXX (multiple initiator ports seeing the same target > scenario). It looks like this is what you want, but thought I'd point that > out. Good point. Yes, that's was the plan, set all ports to the same value. BTW, an 8 hours port toggle test passed. With this setup we don't need to add dirty patches downstream. Thanks, Daniel