On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 06:50:26PM +0400, pluknet wrote: > On 30 April 2010 18:22, Matthew Jacob <mj_at_feral.com> wrote: > > pluknet wrote: > > Seems good to me- why not trhow it freebsd-scsi? if nobody says no, I'll put > > it in > > Err.. I thought that list is dedicated for cam related stuff. > > [cc'ing scsi_at_ for better coverage. Sorry for cross-posting :/ ] > > > > >> --- RELENG_7_3/src/sys/dev/mpt/mpt_cam.c 2010-03-02 > >> 15:38:13.000000000 +0300 > >> +++ RELENG_7_3.ours/src/sys/dev/mpt/mpt_cam.c 2010-04-21 > >> 19:31:00.000000000 +0400 > >> _at__at_ -2564,6 +2564,12 _at__at_ mpt_cam_event(struct mpt_softc *mpt, req > >> CAMLOCK_2_MPTLOCK(mpt); > >> break; > >> } > >> + case MPI_EVENT_IR_RESYNC_UPDATE: > >> + { > >> + uint8_t resync = (data0 >> 16) & 0xff; > >> + mpt_prt(mpt, "IR resync update %d completed\n", resync); > >> + break; > >> + } > >> case MPI_EVENT_EVENT_CHANGE: > >> case MPI_EVENT_INTEGRATED_RAID: > >> case MPI_EVENT_SAS_DEVICE_STATUS_CHANGE: > >> > >> Another way - just hide such event since mptutil displays rebuild > >> progress. > >> > >> > Could you maybe avoid defining a variable inside a nested scope for consistency with the majority of the existing cases and in order to not violate style(9) unnecessarily? Marius Index: mpt_cam.c =================================================================== --- mpt_cam.c (revision 207463) +++ mpt_cam.c (working copy) _at__at_ -2575,6 +2575,10 _at__at_ mpt_cam_event(struct mpt_softc *mpt, request_t *re CAMLOCK_2_MPTLOCK(mpt); break; } + case MPI_EVENT_IR_RESYNC_UPDATE: + mpt_prt(mpt, "IR resync update %d completed\n", + (data0 >> 16) & 0xff); + break; case MPI_EVENT_EVENT_CHANGE: case MPI_EVENT_INTEGRATED_RAID: case MPI_EVENT_SAS_DEVICE_STATUS_CHANGE:Received on Sat May 01 2010 - 13:03:39 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:03 UTC