From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Smart Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/17] lpfc: NVME Initiator: Base modifications Part B Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:45:46 -0800 Message-ID: <4c44ac81-e409-371e-7fa5-bc1946b6c650@gmail.com> References: <587ec2ee.01djIfQsSlhQj6k1%jsmart2021@gmail.com> <20170118101112.GC3514@linux-x5ow.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-ot0-f196.google.com ([74.125.82.196]:33765 "EHLO mail-ot0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751867AbdASCqa (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:46:30 -0500 Received: by mail-ot0-f196.google.com with SMTP id f9so3002055otd.0 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:45:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20170118101112.GC3514@linux-x5ow.site> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Thumshirn Cc: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, sagi@grimberg.me, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 1/18/2017 2:11 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > 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 >> Signed-off-by: James Smart >> --- > [...] > >> + 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... The line split is certainly due to the 80 limit and have that issue a lot. As for what the string name should be - I agree with you. something is confused. >> +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. I called out - in patch2 - that Patches 2 through 7, known as parts A..F, area really one big patch. They will not follow the git bisect rules. I could have sent them in one huge patch, but chose to break them up. Unfortunately, the mods accumulated over time with lots of reworks - creating a base that was too intertwined to put into small functional patches without spending oodles of time to carve them up. I hope you can bear with me on this set and review the 7 pieces as one big patch. -- james