mpt(4) MPI_EVENT_IR_RESYNC_UPDATE

[Marius Strobl]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 06:50:26PM +0400, pluknet wrote:
> On 30 April 2010 18:22, Matthew Jacob <mj at feral.com> wrote:
> > pluknet wrote:
> > Seems good to me- why not trhow it freebsd-scsi? if nobody says no, I'll put
> > it in
> 
> Err.. I thought that list is dedicated for cam related stuff.
> 
> [cc'ing scsi@ for better coverage. Sorry for cross-posting :/ ]
> 
> >
> >> --- RELENG_7_3/src/sys/dev/mpt/mpt_cam.c        2010-03-02
> >> 15:38:13.000000000 +0300
> >> +++ RELENG_7_3.ours/src/sys/dev/mpt/mpt_cam.c   2010-04-21
> >> 19:31:00.000000000 +0400
> >> @@ -2564,6 +2564,12 @@ mpt_cam_event(struct mpt_softc *mpt, req
> >>                CAMLOCK_2_MPTLOCK(mpt);
> >>                break;
> >>        }
> >> +       case MPI_EVENT_IR_RESYNC_UPDATE:
> >> +       {
> >> +               uint8_t resync = (data0 >> 16) & 0xff;
> >> +               mpt_prt(mpt, "IR resync update %d completed\n", resync);
> >> +               break;
> >> +       }
> >>        case MPI_EVENT_EVENT_CHANGE:
> >>        case MPI_EVENT_INTEGRATED_RAID:
> >>        case MPI_EVENT_SAS_DEVICE_STATUS_CHANGE:
> >>
> >> Another way - just hide such event since mptutil displays rebuild
> >> progress.
> >>
> >>
> 

Could you maybe avoid defining a variable inside a nested scope for
consistency with the majority of the existing cases and in order to
not violate style(9) unnecessarily?

Marius

Index: mpt_cam.c
===================================================================
--- mpt_cam.c	(revision 207463)
+++ mpt_cam.c	(working copy)
@@ -2575,6 +2575,10 @@ mpt_cam_event(struct mpt_softc *mpt, request_t *re
 		CAMLOCK_2_MPTLOCK(mpt);
 		break;
 	}
+	case MPI_EVENT_IR_RESYNC_UPDATE:
+		mpt_prt(mpt, "IR resync update %d completed\n",
+		    (data0 >> 16) & 0xff);
+		break;
 	case MPI_EVENT_EVENT_CHANGE:
 	case MPI_EVENT_INTEGRATED_RAID:
 	case MPI_EVENT_SAS_DEVICE_STATUS_CHANGE: