Hi Andrew,
Is this patch accepted?
If not, can you please provide comment.
Thank you,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ju, Seokmann
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:52 PM
> To: 'Andrew Morton'; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: Ju, Seokmann; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] megaraid_{mm,mbox}: updated
> fix-a-bug-in-reset-handler
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch has created against 2.6.17-rc1-mm3.
>
> The patch contains changes addressing following concerns
> brought by previous megaraid_mmmbox-fix-a-bug-in-reset-handler.patch.
>
> 1.Andrew Morton:
> > + scb->status = -EFAULT;
>
> What is the significance of -EFAULT here? Seems inappropriate?
> 2. Andrew Morton:
> And if that mbox is in main memory, the duration of
> this spin will vary by
> a factor of many tens across all the different machines
> on which this
> driver must operate.
>
> Careful use of ndelay() or udelay() would fix that.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Seokmann
>
> Signed-Off By: Seokmann Ju <[email protected]>
> ---
> diff -Naur old/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_mbox.c
> new/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_mbox.c
> --- old/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_mbox.c 2006-04-18
> 17:17:06.288025720 -0400
> +++ new/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_mbox.c 2006-04-13
> 16:46:53.000000000 -0400
> @@ -2278,6 +2278,7 @@
> unsigned long flags;
> uint8_t c;
> int status;
> + uioc_t *kioc;
>
>
> if (!adapter) return;
> @@ -2320,6 +2321,9 @@
> // remove from local clist
> list_del_init(&scb->list);
>
> + kioc = (uioc_t *)scb->gp;
> + kioc->status = 0;
> +
> megaraid_mbox_mm_done(adapter, scb);
>
> continue;
> @@ -2636,6 +2640,7 @@
> int recovery_window;
> int recovering;
> int i;
> + uioc_t *kioc;
>
> adapter = SCP2ADAPTER(scp);
> raid_dev = ADAP2RAIDDEV(adapter);
> @@ -2662,7 +2667,10 @@
> "megaraid: IOCTL packet with %d[%d:%d]
> being reset\n",
> scb->sno, scb->dev_channel, scb->dev_target));
>
> - scb->status = -EFAULT;
> + scb->status = -1;
> +
> + kioc = (uioc_t *)scb->gp;
> + kioc->status = -EFAULT;
>
> megaraid_mbox_mm_done(adapter, scb);
> } else {
> @@ -2933,12 +2941,13 @@
> wmb();
> WRINDOOR(raid_dev, raid_dev->mbox_dma | 0x1);
>
> - for (i = 0; i < 0xFFFFFF; i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < MBOX_SYNC_WAIT_CNT; i++) {
> if (mbox->numstatus != 0xFF) break;
> rmb();
> + udelay(MBOX_SYNC_DELAY_200);
> }
>
> - if (i == 0xFFFFFF) {
> + if (i == MBOX_SYNC_WAIT_CNT) {
> // We may need to re-calibrate the counter
> con_log(CL_ANN, (KERN_CRIT
> "megaraid: fast sync command timed out\n"));
> @@ -3717,7 +3726,6 @@
> unsigned long flags;
>
> kioc = (uioc_t *)scb->gp;
> - kioc->status = 0;
> mbox64 = (mbox64_t *)(unsigned
> long)kioc->cmdbuf;
> mbox64->mbox32.status = scb->status;
> raw_mbox = (uint8_t *)&mbox64->mbox32;
> diff -Naur old/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_mbox.h
> new/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_mbox.h
> --- old/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_mbox.h 2006-04-18
> 17:17:06.289025568 -0400
> +++ new/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_mbox.h 2006-04-13
> 16:05:30.000000000 -0400
> @@ -100,6 +100,9 @@
> #define MBOX_BUSY_WAIT 10 // max usec to
> wait for busy mailbox
> #define MBOX_RESET_WAIT 180 // wait these
> many seconds in reset
> #define MBOX_RESET_EXT_WAIT 120 // extended wait reset
> +#define MBOX_SYNC_WAIT_CNT 0xFFFF // wait loop index for
> synchronous mode
> +
> +#define MBOX_SYNC_DELAY_200 200 // 200 micro-seconds
>
> /*
> * maximum transfer that can happen through the firmware
> commands issued
> ---
>
On Tue, 2 May 2006 14:04:06 -0600
"Ju, Seokmann" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is this patch accepted?
James is the scsi-patch-accepting guy. I do pick up lots of patches which
belong to subsystem maintainers (mainly because they're lossy...) but they
still go through the subsytem maintainer.
> If not, can you please provide comment.
I don't appear to have a copy queued up, and I'm struggling a bit to
identify the right patch (partly because your email client appears to
support neither In-Reply-To: nor References:)
So. Sorry, please resend.
On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 06:21 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2006 14:04:06 -0600
> "Ju, Seokmann" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Is this patch accepted?
>
> James is the scsi-patch-accepting guy. I do pick up lots of patches which
> belong to subsystem maintainers (mainly because they're lossy...) but they
> still go through the subsytem maintainer.
>
> > If not, can you please provide comment.
>
> I don't appear to have a copy queued up, and I'm struggling a bit to
> identify the right patch (partly because your email client appears to
> support neither In-Reply-To: nor References:)
This is it, isn't it?
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi-rc-fixes-2.6.git;a=commit;h=c005fb4fb2d23ba29ad21dee5042b2f8451ca8ba
James