From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] ipr: Add asynchronous error notification Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:29:04 -0300 Message-ID: <87zio098an.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1469795977-6345-1-git-send-email-halves@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:61002 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758781AbcHYP3M (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:29:12 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u7PFQ4Vf063147 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:29:11 -0400 Received: from e24smtp04.br.ibm.com (e24smtp04.br.ibm.com [32.104.18.25]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2512h98e6b-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:29:11 -0400 Received: from localhost by e24smtp04.br.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:29:09 -0300 Received: from d24relay03.br.ibm.com (d24relay03.br.ibm.com [9.13.184.25]) by d24dlp02.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 348101DC0051 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:28:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.91]) by d24relay03.br.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u7PFT6LM4063676 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:29:06 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u7PFT5Rv030855 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:29:06 -0300 In-Reply-To: (Brian King's message of "Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:56:51 -0500") Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Brian King Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , Heitor Ricardo Alves de Siqueira , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Heitor Ricardo Alves de Siqueira Brian King writes: > Looks pretty good. I noticed one issue in an error path where you > weren't removing the new sysfs file. Here is a fixed version. > The modifications look good to me. -- Gabriel Krisman Bertazi