> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johannes Thumshirn [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:46 PM
> To: KY Srinivasan <[email protected]>
> Cc: Keith Mange <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND V2 3/7] scsi: storvsc: Untangle the storage
> protocol negotiation from the vmbus protocol negotiation.
>
> KY Srinivasan <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Johannes Thumshirn [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:34 AM
> >> To: KY Srinivasan <[email protected]>; Keith Mange
> >> <[email protected]>
> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> >> [email protected]; [email protected];
> >> [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected];
> >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND V2 3/7] scsi: storvsc: Untangle the storage
> >> protocol negotiation from the vmbus protocol negotiation.
> >>
> >> "K. Y. Srinivasan" <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >> > From: Keith Mange <[email protected]>
> >> >
> >> > Currently we are making decisions based on vmbus protocol versions
> >> > that have been negotiated; use storage potocol versions instead.
> >> >
> >> > Tested-by: Alex Ng <[email protected]>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Keith Mange <[email protected]>
> >> > Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <[email protected]>
> >> > ---
> >> > drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c | 109
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >> > 1 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c b/drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c
> >> > index 5f9d133..f29871e 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c
> >> > @@ -56,14 +56,18 @@
> >> > * V1 RC > 2008/1/31: 2.0
> >> > * Win7: 4.2
> >> > * Win8: 5.1
> >> > + * Win8.1: 6.0
> >> > + * Win10: 6.2
> >> > */
> >> >
> >> > #define VMSTOR_PROTO_VERSION(MAJOR_, MINOR_) ((((MAJOR_)
> >> & 0xff) << 8) | \
> >> > (((MINOR_) & 0xff)))
> >> >
> >> > +#define VMSTOR_PROTO_VERSION_WIN6
> >> VMSTOR_PROTO_VERSION(2, 0)
> >> > #define VMSTOR_PROTO_VERSION_WIN7
> >> VMSTOR_PROTO_VERSION(4, 2)
> >> > #define VMSTOR_PROTO_VERSION_WIN8
> >> VMSTOR_PROTO_VERSION(5, 1)
> >> > -
> >> > +#define VMSTOR_PROTO_VERSION_WIN8_1
> >> VMSTOR_PROTO_VERSION(6, 0)
> >> > +#define VMSTOR_PROTO_VERSION_WIN10
> >> VMSTOR_PROTO_VERSION(6, 2)
> >> >
> >> > /* Packet structure describing virtual storage requests. */
> >> > enum vstor_packet_operation {
> >> > @@ -205,6 +209,46 @@ struct vmscsi_request {
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > /*
> >> > + * The list of storage protocols in order of preference.
> >> > + */
> >> > +struct vmstor_protocol {
> >> > + int protocol_version;
> >> > + int sense_buffer_size;
> >> > + int vmscsi_size_delta;
> >> > +};
> >> > +
> >> > +#define VMSTOR_NUM_PROTOCOLS 5
> >>
> >> can't you just use ARRAY_SIZE() here, so you don't have to touch the
> >> constant every time a new protocol is appended to the list?
> >
> > Certainly. These patches have been floating around for more than a month
> now and if it is ok
> > with you, I will submit a patch on top of this current series to address the
> concern you have raised.
> > James, please let me know.
> >
>
> No objections from my side, but it's up to James to decide what and when
> he picks up patches.
James,
I have sent a separate patch on top of the set I sent yesterday that addresses
Johannes' comments.
Regards,
K. Y
N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{����zX����ܨ}���Ơz�&j:+v�������zZ+��+zf���h���~����i���z� �w���?�����&�)ߢf��^jǫy�m��@A�a���
0��h���i
