Messages in this thread | | | From | KY Srinivasan <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 1/8] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Change the limits to reflect the values on the host | Date | Wed, 9 Jul 2014 23:39:42 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org [mailto:driverdev- > devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org] On Behalf Of KY Srinivasan > Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 1:07 PM > To: Christoph Hellwig > Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; jasowang@redhat.com; linux- > kernel@vger.kernel.org; jbottomley@parallels.com; ohering@suse.com; > stable@vger.kernel.org; apw@canonical.com; devel@linuxdriverproject.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/8] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Change the limits to reflect the > values on the host > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@infradead.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 1:40 AM > > To: KY Srinivasan > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; devel@linuxdriverproject.org; > > ohering@suse.com; jbottomley@parallels.com; jasowang@redhat.com; > > apw@canonical.com; linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; stable@vger.kernel.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Change the limits to > > reflect the values on the host > > > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 05:46:45PM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote: > > > + * In Hyper-V, each port/path/target maps to 1 scsi host adapter. > > > > Does it still? The STORVSC_FC_MAX_TARGETS define suggests otherwise. > > I will fix the comments and get rid of unnecessary comments. > > > > > > - .cmd_per_lun = 1, > > > + .cmd_per_lun = 255, > > > > This looks like an unrelated change. > > I will have a separate patch for this. > > > > > + /* max # of devices per target */ > > > + host->max_lun = STORVSC_FC_MAX_LUNS_PER_TARGET; > > > + /* max # of targets per channel */ > > > + host->max_id = STORVSC_FC_MAX_TARGETS; > > > + /* max # of channels */ > > > + host->max_channel = STORVSC_FC_MAX_CHANNELS - 1; > > > > I don't think these comments add any value.. > > I will get rid of the comments. > > > > > Also any reason you use off by one defines for max_channel, but not > > the others? > > No particular reason; I will clean this up.
On further examination max_channel is the maximum number of channels including channel 0. Thus the value set for max_channel is correct. max_id appears to indicate the limit. In scsi_scan_channel the loop control is (id < max_id) and hence the value I have here is correct. max_lun is also used like max_id to indicate the limit. In scsi_sequential_lun_scan() the loop control is (lun < max_dev_lun) and hence I think the value I have here is fine.
Regards,
K. Y
| |