X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: by onstor-exch02.onstor.net 
	id <01C8233E.74A720BF@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>; Fri, 9 Nov 2007 18:07:33 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: Please review
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 18:07:33 -0800
Message-ID: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E06882CFE@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20071109180244.6aaa36cf@ripper.onstor.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Please review
Thread-Index: AcgjPciDewvUgjoZRbW+rS6Cfe6IDQAADJ+Q
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E06882B8A@onstor-exch02.onstor.net><20071109163628.1efdb0bd@ripper.onstor.net><BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E06882C85@onstor-exch02.onstor.net><20071109163913.1dfd6e2d@ripper.onstor.net><BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E06882C8C@onstor-exch02.onstor.net><20071109170631.76a42772@ripper.onstor.net><BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E06882CCA@onstor-exch02.onstor.net> <20071109180244.6aaa36cf@ripper.onstor.net>
From: "Maxim Kozlovsky" <maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>
To: "Andy Sharp" <andy.sharp@onstor.com>

>Is this tested on something-linux?  I'm wondering if udev is creating
>the device node for us like a good little boy, or if we have to add it
>to the rootfs/udev stuff.
[MK]=20
It does.
>
>linux/kernel/linux-mips-2.6/drivers/char/mem.c
>
>     line 995, don't say sibyte
[MK] What, are you my mom? Don't say this, don't say that. Ok I'll call
it mips if sibyte somehow became a bad word.

>
>nfx-tree/code/sm-chassis/chassis-ui.c
>
>     looks good
>
>nfx-tree/code/sm-chassis/chassisd-bc.c
>
>     line 1133 you're not unlocking the i2c lock anymore...
[MK] The open unlocks it. We need to unlock it exactly once on creation,
not each time the chassisd starts.
>
>nfx-tree/code/sm-chassis/cm-api-bc.h
>
>     looks good
>
>nfx-tree/code/sm-chassis/linux.h
>
>     looks good
>
>nfx-tree/code/sm-chassis/openbsd.h
>
>     looks good
>
>nfx-tree/code/ssc-genlib/cm-util-bc.c
>
>     line 88, this looks broken to me.  we're poking at semaphore
>     internal values??  if you're changing the semantics of this
>     routine, are there any other callers that need to be changed?
[MK] I did see chassisd-bc.c
>
>nfx-tree/code/ssc-genlib/linux.h
>
>     looks good
>
>nfx-tree/code/ssc-genlib/openbsd.h
>
>     looks good

