Re: mpt(4) MPI_EVENT_IR_RESYNC_UPDATE

On 1 May 2010 19:03, Marius Strobl <marius_at_alchemy.franken.de> wrote:
> 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:
>

I'm fine with it, resync variable is not necessary there.
Thanks for review.

-- 
wbr,
pluknet