On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 10:01:05AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
I am somewhat reluctant here.
Adding separate flags like 'support_vpd_pg83' is a bit pointless,
given that we might as well check for vpg_pg83.
So the only 'proper' solution would be to add a bitmap of supported
pages;
On 03/07/2014 11:11 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 10:01:05AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
I am somewhat reluctant here.
Adding separate flags like 'support_vpd_pg83' is a bit pointless,
given that we might as well check for vpg_pg83.
So the only 'proper' solution
On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 10:01 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
So the only 'proper' solution would be to add a bitmap of supported
pages; however, this would be 256 bits = 32 bytes of additional
space required for struct sdev.
Which I'm a bit reluctant do to, as it'll be a sparse array in most
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 02:40:00PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 10:01 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
So the only 'proper' solution would be to add a bitmap of supported
pages; however, this would be 256 bits = 32 bytes of additional
space required for struct sdev.
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 11:35:34AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
Agree. But for now I'd like to keep it as it is (ie without bitmap);
there is no real benefit for just the two pages we're exposing right
now.
Feel free to go ahead as-is. We'll probably have to change it again
soon, but we
On 03/07/2014 11:39 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 10:01 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
So the only 'proper' solution would be to add a bitmap of supported
pages; however, this would be 256 bits = 32 bytes of additional
space required for struct sdev.
Which I'm a bit
On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 02:43 -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 02:40:00PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 10:01 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
So the only 'proper' solution would be to add a bitmap of supported
pages; however, this would be 256 bits
On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 11:51 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 03/07/2014 11:39 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 10:01 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
So the only 'proper' solution would be to add a bitmap of supported
pages; however, this would be 256 bits = 32 bytes of
On 14-03-07 12:01 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 11:51 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 03/07/2014 11:39 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 10:01 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
So the only 'proper' solution would be to add a bitmap of supported
pages; however,
On 03/07/2014 12:01 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 11:51 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 03/07/2014 11:39 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 10:01 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
So the only 'proper' solution would be to add a bitmap of supported
pages; however,
On 03/05/2014 08:42 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 08:38:01AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
Either way I think the call to query evpd 0 should be a separate
function, so even if we don't store the information it's abstracted out.
Hmm. That would work if we were just
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 08:38:01AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
Either way I think the call to query evpd 0 should be a separate
function, so even if we don't store the information it's abstracted out.
Hmm. That would work if we were just asking for a single page; but
when we're checking
On 02/28/2014 06:01 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:07:11AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
EVPD page 0x83 is used to uniquely identify the device.
So instead of having each and every program issue a separate
SG_IO call to retrieve this information it does make far more
On 03/02/2014 09:36 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 02/13/14 11:28, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
-return 0;
+return (buffer[2] 8) + buffer[3] + 4;
Has it been considered to use get_unaligned_be16() instead of open
coding this function ?
Ok.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke
On 03/02/2014 09:34 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 02/13/14 11:28, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
static ssize_t
-show_iostat_counterbits(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
char *buf)
+show_vpd_pg(const unsigned char *pg_buf, int pg_len, char *buf)
+{
+
On 02/13/14 11:28, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
static ssize_t
-show_iostat_counterbits(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
char *buf)
+show_vpd_pg(const unsigned char *pg_buf, int pg_len, char *buf)
+{
+ int len = 0, i;
+
+ if (!pg_buf)
+
On 02/13/14 11:28, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
- return 0;
+ return (buffer[2] 8) + buffer[3] + 4;
Has it been considered to use get_unaligned_be16() instead of open
coding this function ?
Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-scsi in
the body of a
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:07:11AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
EVPD page 0x83 is used to uniquely identify the device.
So instead of having each and every program issue a separate
SG_IO call to retrieve this information it does make far more
sense to display it in sysfs.
This just shows
EVPD page 0x83 is used to uniquely identify the device.
So instead of having each and every program issue a separate
SG_IO call to retrieve this information it does make far more
sense to display it in sysfs.
Cc: Jeremy Linton jlin...@tributary.com
Cc: Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org
Cc: Doug Gilbert
EVPD page 0x83 is used to uniquely identify the device.
So instead of having each and every program issue a separate
SG_IO call to retrieve this information it does make far more
sense to display it in sysfs.
Cc: Jeremy Linton jlin...@tributary.com
Cc: Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org
Cc: Doug Gilbert
20 matches
Mail list logo
