@des Please take another look. Do you still want to see the pointer gymnastics?

In D54519#1252062, @ziaee wrote:

I agree with this from a doc principle but I don't know enough from a C standpoint, I'd like @emaste or @imp to check it.

I ran this and it looks good now:

root@deblndw014x:~ # dmesg | grep mrsas0
mrsas0: <AVAGO Thunderbolt SAS Controller> port 0x8000-0x80ff mem 0xdfa60000-0xdfa63fff,0xdfa00000-0xdfa3ffff irq 26 at device 0.0 on pci1
mrsas0: FW now in Ready state
mrsas0: Using MSI-X with 16 number of vectors
mrsas0: FW supports <16> MSIX vector,Online CPU 32 Current MSIX <16>
mrsas0: mrsas_init_adapter: sc->reply_q_depth 0x7e0,sc->request_alloc_sz 0x1f78, sc->reply_alloc_sz 0x3f00,sc->io_frames_alloc_sz 0x3f100
mrsas0: max sge: 0x46, max chain frame size: 0x400, max fw cmd: 0x3ef sc->chain_frames_alloc_sz: 0xfbc00
mrsas0: Issuing IOC INIT command to FW.
mrsas0: IOC INIT response received from FW.

Please add also MFC after one week or so. I don't see it in the summary.

Checked two days in a row. Looks good to me now. Thank you!

LGTM

This looks decent now. I will install this on a few machines and wait until Monday. Thanks!

Rebase against main

What about the documentation part? It does not mention mit-devel at all.

Closing this in favor of @jrm's simpler solution.

I am fine with that. Thank you for the hard work!

Since there was no agreement whether the author's email address should be updated for a newer one, I am going to clone this one.

There is a typo in the commit message: libbbhyve.

There is a typo in the commit message: libbbhyve.

In D54606#1248653, @jrm wrote:

I think the feeling of being ignored is fairly common in the project. There is just more work to be done than time to do it all, and people often expend their energy on things that interest them.

Address style(9) fixes

Apply style(9) fixes

don't fiddle with SUNPATHLEN

In D54606#1248645, @jrm wrote:

@michaelo, I believe I've addressed all your concerns, and I've performed some light testing with manually created logs. Are you able and willing to do any testing with your real logs for the three scripts?

In D54606#1247636, @jrm wrote:

Michael, I took another look at your review, and it dawned on me that we don't need to know which timestamp format is in use. We only need patterns that match either format. Rather than trying to explain things in the other review or take it over, I thought I would first create a separate review for you to consider.
I haven't thoroughly tested this version because I don't have adequate logs.

What do you think?

In D54361#1247638, @jrm wrote:

Michael, take a look at https://reviews.freebsd.org/D54606, which might be a cleaner approach.