This patch fixes the fact that although the scsi_transport_fc.h header
file is not included in qla_def.h, we still reference the function
fc_remote_port_unlock in the qlogic ISP2x00 device driver ,
qla2xxx/qla_rscn.c
Signed-off-by: Ashutosh Naik <[email protected]>
--
diff -Naurp linux-2.6.14-git1/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_def.h
linux-2.6.14/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_def.h
--- linux-2.6.14-git1/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_def.h 2005-10-28
05:32:08.000000000 +0530
+++ linux-2.6.14/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_def.h 2005-11-01
11:54:25.000000000 +0530
@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@
#include <scsi/scsi_host.h>
#include <scsi/scsi_device.h>
#include <scsi/scsi_cmnd.h>
+#include <scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h>
#if defined(CONFIG_SCSI_QLA21XX) || defined(CONFIG_SCSI_QLA21XX_MODULE)
#define IS_QLA2100(ha) ((ha)->pdev->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_QLOGIC_ISP2100)
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005, Ashutosh Naik wrote:
> This patch fixes the fact that although the scsi_transport_fc.h header
> file is not included in qla_def.h, we still reference the function
> fc_remote_port_unlock in the qlogic ISP2x00 device driver ,
> qla2xxx/qla_rscn.c
Perhaps for the stable tree (2.6.14.x) this fix is appropriate. The
scsi-misc-2.6.git tree already has codes which address this issue.
Regards,
Andrew Vasquez
* Andrew Vasquez ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Nov 2005, Ashutosh Naik wrote:
>
> > This patch fixes the fact that although the scsi_transport_fc.h header
> > file is not included in qla_def.h, we still reference the function
> > fc_remote_port_unlock in the qlogic ISP2x00 device driver ,
> > qla2xxx/qla_rscn.c
>
> Perhaps for the stable tree (2.6.14.x) this fix is appropriate. The
> scsi-misc-2.6.git tree already has codes which address this issue.
It's preferable to have that fix pending in scsi-misc for -stable.
thanks,
-chris
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Andrew Vasquez ([email protected]) wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Nov 2005, Ashutosh Naik wrote:
> >
> > > This patch fixes the fact that although the scsi_transport_fc.h header
> > > file is not included in qla_def.h, we still reference the function
> > > fc_remote_port_unlock in the qlogic ISP2x00 device driver ,
> > > qla2xxx/qla_rscn.c
> >
> > Perhaps for the stable tree (2.6.14.x) this fix is appropriate. The
> > scsi-misc-2.6.git tree already has codes which address this issue.
>
> It's preferable to have that fix pending in scsi-misc for -stable.
Sure. But, the interface changes present in scsi-misc-2.6, notably:
http://kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi-misc-2.6.git;a=commit;h=19a7b4aebf9ad435c69a7e39930338499af4d152
obviate the need for the explicit '#include' -- there are no longer
any explicit calls to the fc_remote_port_*() functions within
qla_rscn.c.
Regards,
Andrew Vasquez
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 00:21 -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Andrew Vasquez ([email protected]) wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Nov 2005, Ashutosh Naik wrote:
> >
> > > This patch fixes the fact that although the scsi_transport_fc.h header
> > > file is not included in qla_def.h, we still reference the function
> > > fc_remote_port_unlock in the qlogic ISP2x00 device driver ,
> > > qla2xxx/qla_rscn.c
> >
> > Perhaps for the stable tree (2.6.14.x) this fix is appropriate. The
> > scsi-misc-2.6.git tree already has codes which address this issue.
>
> It's preferable to have that fix pending in scsi-misc for -stable.
This is the fix that's queued in scsi-misc for this:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi-misc-2.6.git;a=commit;h=aa353de649f1ba05a71b2f5b8eb1e99632ab54eb
But since this is only a compile warning, does it really warrant fixing
in the stable tree?
James
Hi,
On 11/3/05, Andrew Vasquez <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sure. But, the interface changes present in scsi-misc-2.6, notably:
>
> http://kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi-misc-2.6.git;a=commit;h=19a7b4aebf9ad435c69a7e39930338499af4d152
>
> obviate the need for the explicit '#include' -- there are no longer
> any explicit calls to the fc_remote_port_*() functions within
> qla_rscn.c.
Well, hopefully the above code should get merged soon ( in 2.6.15
hopefully), but until then, I think the current tree should be fixed
with the patch, if the interface changes are not reflected in 2.6.15
Regards
Ashutosh