[PATCH 01/21] lpfc: Fix the iteration count to match the 30 sec comment

Subsystems: emulex/broadcom lpfc fc/fcoe scsi driver, scsi subsystem, the rest

STALE4225d

4 messages, 2 authors, 2015-03-09 · open the first message on its own page

[PATCH 01/21] lpfc: Fix the iteration count to match the 30 sec comment

From: James Smart <hidden>
Date: 2015-02-05 19:23:34 

---
 drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
index 0b2c53a..2b5b910 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
@@ -7953,7 +7953,7 @@ wait:
 		 * up to 30 seconds. If the port doesn't respond, treat
 		 * it as an error.
 		 */
-		for (rdy_chk = 0; rdy_chk < 3000; rdy_chk++) {
+		for (rdy_chk = 0; rdy_chk < 1500; rdy_chk++) {
 			if (lpfc_readl(phba->sli4_hba.u.if_type2.
 				STATUSregaddr, &reg_data.word0)) {
 				rc = -ENODEV;
-- 
1.7.11.7

Signed-off-by: James Smart <james.smart@emulex.com>
Signed-off-by: Dick Kennedy <dick.kennedy@emulex.com>

Re: [PATCH 01/21] lpfc: Fix the iteration count to match the 30 sec comment

From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: 2015-03-07 16:44:12 

On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 14:23 -0500, James Smart wrote:
---
Could you put the signoffs (and any changelog) above here, please.  You
seem to be using git to generate the patches, so if you just put them in
the git change log the right thing will happen.  If you don't do this,
all your patches have to be hand edited to apply them, which is a royal
pain for a maintainer.
quoted hunk
 drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
index 0b2c53a..2b5b910 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
@@ -7953,7 +7953,7 @@ wait:
 		 * up to 30 seconds. If the port doesn't respond, treat
 		 * it as an error.
 		 */
-		for (rdy_chk = 0; rdy_chk < 3000; rdy_chk++) {
+		for (rdy_chk = 0; rdy_chk < 1500; rdy_chk++) {
 			if (lpfc_readl(phba->sli4_hba.u.if_type2.
 				STATUSregaddr, &reg_data.word0)) {
 				rc = -ENODEV;
-- 
1.7.11.7

Signed-off-by: James Smart <james.smart@emulex.com>
Signed-off-by: Dick Kennedy <dick.kennedy@emulex.com>
I'm not quite understanding this signoff chain.  It reads like Dick
Kennedy is the author, in which case the patch needs a From: <him> at
the top to make this clear.  If it's jointly authored, then
traditionally he'd still be the first signoff because the series of
signoffs represents the transmission chain and you send the patch, so
you should be last signoff.

James

Re: [PATCH 01/21] lpfc: Fix the iteration count to match the 30 sec comment

From: James Smart <hidden>
Date: 2015-03-09 14:08:12 

Yes,   I'll correct this. Trying to make Christoph happy by using git to format all the patches.

-- james



On 3/7/2015 11:44 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 14:23 -0500, James Smart wrote:
quoted
---
Could you put the signoffs (and any changelog) above here, please.  You
seem to be using git to generate the patches, so if you just put them in
the git change log the right thing will happen.  If you don't do this,
all your patches have to be hand edited to apply them, which is a royal
pain for a maintainer.
quoted
  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c | 2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
index 0b2c53a..2b5b910 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
@@ -7953,7 +7953,7 @@ wait:
  		 * up to 30 seconds. If the port doesn't respond, treat
  		 * it as an error.
  		 */
-		for (rdy_chk = 0; rdy_chk < 3000; rdy_chk++) {
+		for (rdy_chk = 0; rdy_chk < 1500; rdy_chk++) {
  			if (lpfc_readl(phba->sli4_hba.u.if_type2.
  				STATUSregaddr, &reg_data.word0)) {
  				rc = -ENODEV;
-- 
1.7.11.7

Signed-off-by: James Smart <james.smart@emulex.com>
Signed-off-by: Dick Kennedy <dick.kennedy@emulex.com>
I'm not quite understanding this signoff chain.  It reads like Dick
Kennedy is the author, in which case the patch needs a From: <him> at
the top to make this clear.  If it's jointly authored, then
traditionally he'd still be the first signoff because the series of
signoffs represents the transmission chain and you send the patch, so
you should be last signoff.

James


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html





  

    
Re: [PATCH 01/21] lpfc: Fix the iteration count to match the 30 sec comment

    

      From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>

      Date: 2015-03-09 14:10:04 
    

  

  
On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 10:07 -0400, James Smart wrote:
Yes,   I'll correct this.
Great, thanks!

 Trying to make Christoph happy by using git to 
format all the patches.
We're all happy you're using git to format the patches ... it's just a
minor addition to your commit log to give me the information in the form
I need.

Thanks,

James

-- james



On 3/7/2015 11:44 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
quoted
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 14:23 -0500, James Smart wrote:
quoted
---
Could you put the signoffs (and any changelog) above here, please.  You
seem to be using git to generate the patches, so if you just put them in
the git change log the right thing will happen.  If you don't do this,
all your patches have to be hand edited to apply them, which is a royal
pain for a maintainer.

quoted
  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c | 2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
index 0b2c53a..2b5b910 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
@@ -7953,7 +7953,7 @@ wait:
  		 * up to 30 seconds. If the port doesn't respond, treat
  		 * it as an error.
  		 */
-		for (rdy_chk = 0; rdy_chk < 3000; rdy_chk++) {
+		for (rdy_chk = 0; rdy_chk < 1500; rdy_chk++) {
  			if (lpfc_readl(phba->sli4_hba.u.if_type2.
  				STATUSregaddr, &reg_data.word0)) {
  				rc = -ENODEV;
-- 
1.7.11.7

Signed-off-by: James Smart <james.smart@emulex.com>
Signed-off-by: Dick Kennedy <dick.kennedy@emulex.com>
I'm not quite understanding this signoff chain.  It reads like Dick
Kennedy is the author, in which case the patch needs a From: <him> at
the top to make this clear.  If it's jointly authored, then
traditionally he'd still be the first signoff because the series of
signoffs represents the transmission chain and you send the patch, so
you should be last signoff.

James


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html






    
  

  
    

      

        Keyboard shortcuts
      

      

        
          
hback out one level

          
jnext message in thread

          
kprevious message in thread

          
ldrill in

          
Escclose help / fold thread tree

          
?toggle this help