On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:18:42 -0700
Michael Hunter <Michael.Hunter at Sun.COM> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:55:27 -0400
> "Anurag S. Maskey" <Anurag.Maskey at Sun.COM> wrote:
>
> > The README definitely needs to be expanded/added with the QUEUE_QUIET
> > stuff and the event handling logic. I think I know how it works, but
> > not entirely sure.
>
> DEFER (I'll probably get it written before I push but I don't want it
> to hold up the functionality).
Written. Please review.
[...ncu_phys.c...]
> > why is 1774-1776 moved out from 1798? We don't have NCUs with lower
> > priority (ie bigger numbers) going to up state.
> >
> > also, why 1830-1832 outside of priority group checking?
>
> I need to investigate and write more on these (and almost certainly
> comment). FWIR the issue was that we would lose state for something
> that we later needed state for when we were transitioning to it. But I
> have a dinner date so I'll have to write that later :)
[...]
Conceptually we need to keep track of the state of the link NCUs
independent of which ones we decide to build interfaces on.
Up until a few minutes ago I could get multiple interfaces to show up
when we didn't do that. Now I can't :( I'm putting the code back to
the way it was and we'll have to figure out what the event sequence is
if it can be reproduced.
New webrev.
mph
