From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754301AbXDQClN (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:41:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754307AbXDQClN (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:41:13 -0400 Received: from avexch1.qlogic.com ([198.70.193.115]:20540 "EHLO avexch1.qlogic.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754300AbXDQClM (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:41:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:41:07 -0700 From: Andrew Vasquez To: David Miller , Seokmann Ju Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com, ema@debian.org Subject: Re: Major qla2xxx regression on sparc64 Message-ID: <20070417024107.GE16469@dmccrory-d810.qlogic.org> References: <20070416232851.GA15840@dmccrory-d810.qlogic.org> <20070416.164111.32625690.davem@davemloft.net> <20070416234705.GA15937@dmccrory-d810.qlogic.org> <20070416.170504.02298047.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070416.170504.02298047.davem@davemloft.net> Organization: QLogic Corporation User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Apr 2007 02:40:55.0346 (UTC) FILETIME=[D2826120:01C78099] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, David Miller wrote: > From: Andrew Vasquez > Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:47:05 -0700 > > > Dave, according to your earlier emails, the qla2xxx driver worked > > 'fine' in driver versions before commit > > 7aef45ac92f49e76d990b51b7ecd714b9a608be1. If that were the case, then > > you would have seen the warning messages: > > > > ... > > qla_printk(KERN_WARNING, ha, "Falling back to functioning (yet " > > "invalid -- WWPN) defaults.\n"); > > I have in fact seen the message several times and that messages gives > me no reason to believe something needs to be fixed. > > It should have said "PLEASE REPORT THIS to drivers@qlogic.com" or > something similar to indicate the severity better. > > "An invalid WWPN, what's that?" said the user. :) > > How about "FC IDs may conflict and cause miscommunication! Please > report to driver author so this can be fixed!" or similar? That verbiage sounds fine -- so would you consider the previous patch I submitted (with module parameter) along with the wording above? I'm in transit for a redeye to NY so I won't be able to modify the patch, If you would be amenable to the above, Seokmann, could you rework the patch?