Re: [PATCH 03/10] mpt3sas: Implement device_remove_in_progress check in IOCTL path

2016-10-25 Thread Suganath Prabu Subramani
Hi Hannes, Thanks, >From facts.MaxDevHandle value from firmware, driver will get to know the max device handle or devices that it can support. Based on that value only driver will allocate memory for bit mapping. And driver will not receive any events from controller, if it exceeds the max

Re: [PATCH 03/10] mpt3sas: Implement device_remove_in_progress check in IOCTL path

2016-10-25 Thread Suganath Prabu Subramani
Hi Hannes, Thanks, >From facts.MaxDevHandle value from firmware, driver will get to know the max device handle or devices that it can support. Based on that value only driver will allocate memory for bit mapping. And driver will not receive any events from controller, if it exceeds the max

Re: [PATCH 03/10] mpt3sas: Implement device_remove_in_progress check in IOCTL path

2016-10-25 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 10/25/2016 11:19 AM, Suganath Prabu Subramani wrote: > Hi Hannes, > > Please give us little more info on the third comment. It ll help us to > understand better and > incorporate required changes. > > Comment is "Why don't you need to check for the size of the bitmap here?" > > i have taken

Re: [PATCH 03/10] mpt3sas: Implement device_remove_in_progress check in IOCTL path

2016-10-25 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 10/25/2016 11:19 AM, Suganath Prabu Subramani wrote: > Hi Hannes, > > Please give us little more info on the third comment. It ll help us to > understand better and > incorporate required changes. > > Comment is "Why don't you need to check for the size of the bitmap here?" > > i have taken

Re: [PATCH 03/10] mpt3sas: Implement device_remove_in_progress check in IOCTL path

2016-10-25 Thread Suganath Prabu Subramani
Hi Hannes, Please give us little more info on the third comment. It ll help us to understand better and incorporate required changes. Comment is "Why don't you need to check for the size of the bitmap here?" i have taken care of other two comments in this patch. > /* check if device is

Re: [PATCH 03/10] mpt3sas: Implement device_remove_in_progress check in IOCTL path

2016-10-25 Thread Suganath Prabu Subramani
Hi Hannes, Please give us little more info on the third comment. It ll help us to understand better and incorporate required changes. Comment is "Why don't you need to check for the size of the bitmap here?" i have taken care of other two comments in this patch. > /* check if device is

Re: [PATCH 03/10] mpt3sas: Implement device_remove_in_progress check in IOCTL path

2016-10-24 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 10/20/2016 02:20 PM, Suganath Prabu S wrote: When device missing event arrives, device_remove_in_progress bit will be set and hence driver has to stop sending IOCTL commands.Now the check has been added in IOCTL path to test device_remove_in_progress bit is set, if so then IOCTL will be

Re: [PATCH 03/10] mpt3sas: Implement device_remove_in_progress check in IOCTL path

2016-10-24 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 10/20/2016 02:20 PM, Suganath Prabu S wrote: When device missing event arrives, device_remove_in_progress bit will be set and hence driver has to stop sending IOCTL commands.Now the check has been added in IOCTL path to test device_remove_in_progress bit is set, if so then IOCTL will be

[PATCH 03/10] mpt3sas: Implement device_remove_in_progress check in IOCTL path

2016-10-20 Thread Suganath Prabu S
When device missing event arrives, device_remove_in_progress bit will be set and hence driver has to stop sending IOCTL commands.Now the check has been added in IOCTL path to test device_remove_in_progress bit is set, if so then IOCTL will be failed printing failure message. Signed-off-by:

[PATCH 03/10] mpt3sas: Implement device_remove_in_progress check in IOCTL path

2016-10-20 Thread Suganath Prabu S
When device missing event arrives, device_remove_in_progress bit will be set and hence driver has to stop sending IOCTL commands.Now the check has been added in IOCTL path to test device_remove_in_progress bit is set, if so then IOCTL will be failed printing failure message. Signed-off-by: