"FC Pass Thru support" fixed for block/for-2.6.31 tree

Hello, Boaz.

Just two minor things.

Quoted 4 lines · Boaz Harrosh

drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c +1 -1

 	/* we assume all request payload was transferred, residual == 0 */
-	req->data_len = 0;
+	req->resid_len = 0;

drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c fc_bsg_jobdone(struct fc_bsg_job *job) · line 3432

Quoted 3 lines

drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c +0 -2

 	if (rsp) {
-		rsp_len = blk_rq_bytes(rsp);
-		BUG_ON(job->reply->reply_payload_rcv_len > rsp_len);

Maybe convert it to WARN_ON() instead of removing?

drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c fc_bsg_jobdone(struct fc_bsg_job *job) · line 3432

Quoted 5 lines

drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c +2 -1

 		/* set reply (bidi) residual */
-		rsp->data_len = (rsp_len - job->reply->reply_payload_rcv_len);
+		rsp->resid_len = blk_rq_bytes(rsp) -
+					job->reply->reply_payload_rcv_len;

With the fix-fallouts patchset it, this can be

	rsp->resid_len -= job->reply->reply_payload_rcv_len;

Other than above misc points,

Acked-by Tejun Heo <[email protected]>

This patch should be squashed into
[SCSI] FC Pass Thru support

If it needs to compile after Tejun's block-layer revamps (all of them)

Quoted 4 lines · On Tue, 19 May 2009 15:54:59 +0300 Boaz Harrosh <[email protected]> wrote:

This patch should be squashed into
[SCSI] FC Pass Thru support

Quoted 2 lines

If it needs to compile after Tejun's block-layer revamps (all of them)

Is there some reason that the FC passthrough support (and any followup patches) can't be pushed through the block tree. It clearly currently doesn't depend on anything new in the scsi tree ...

Quoted 5 lines · Stephen Rothwell

Quoted 3 lines · On Tue, 19 May 2009 15:54:59 +0300 Boaz Harrosh <[email protected]> wrote:

This patch should be squashed into
[SCSI] FC Pass Thru support

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 3 lines

If it needs to compile after Tejun's block-layer revamps (all of them)

Is there some reason that the FC passthrough support (and any followup patches) can't be pushed through the block tree. It clearly currently doesn't depend on anything new in the scsi tree ...

If it will go through block tree it needs James Bottomley's Ack, I guess?

It does, in any case, need Ack from James Smart first. James ?

Thanks
Boaz

Quoted 5 lines · On Tue, 19 May 2009 15:54:59 +0300 Boaz Harrosh <[email protected]> wrote:

This patch should be squashed into
[SCSI] FC Pass Thru support

Quoted 2 lines

If it needs to compile after Tejun's block-layer revamps (all of them)

Is there some reason that the FC passthrough support (and any followup patches) can't be pushed through the block tree. It clearly currently doesn't depend on anything new in the scsi tree ...

Unfortuantely, I still need the block tree for-next to be rebased up to the current linus head because of a couple of conflicts:

CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in drivers/block/hd.c CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in drivers/block/mg_disk.c

So they obviously moved into linus head but wasn't taken out of block for-next.

Hi James,

Quoted 1 line · On Wed, 20 May 2009 14:37:20 +0000 James Bottomley…

Quoted 5 lines

Unfortuantely, I still need the block tree for-next to be rebased up to the current linus head because of a couple of conflicts:

CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in drivers/block/hd.c CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in drivers/block/mg_disk.c

As discussed elsewhere, a merge of Linus' tree into the block tree will fix this.

Quoted 2 lines

So they obviously moved into linus head but wasn't taken out of block for-next.

Indeed.

OK, so I think your pulling of my posmerge tree can cope with the fact that I did the necessary rebasing in block for-next before I made it the base of my combined tree .... think of this as a nice test.

Just building now ... if it works, I'll push to SCSI post merge and all our problems should go away.

Quoted 6 lines · James Bottomley

OK, so I think your pulling of my posmerge tree can cope with the fact that I did the necessary rebasing in block for-next before I made it the base of my combined tree .... think of this as a nice test.

Just building now ... if it works, I'll push to SCSI post merge and all our problems should go away.

Unfortunately the combined tree hits a BUG_ON blk-core.c:2045 when doing SPI domain validation.

There will be a short delay ...

James

Quoted 5 lines · James Bottomley

Quoted 4 lines · James Bottomley

OK, so I think your pulling of my posmerge tree can cope with the fact that I did the necessary rebasing in block for-next before I made it the base of my combined tree .... think of this as a nice test.

Quoted 10 lines

Quoted 2 lines

Just building now ... if it works, I'll push to SCSI post merge and all our problems should go away.

Unfortunately the combined tree hits a BUG_ON blk-core.c:2045 when doing SPI domain validation.

There will be a short delay ...

James

I have rebased block/for-next onto linus/master which should give us the same content?

But line 2045 is on a code comment.

if I now do a git-log v2.6.30-rc3..HEAD I have the following patches:

pick 42dad76 block: simplify I/O stat accounting
pick af498d7 block: fix the bio_vec array index out-of-bounds test
pick d616ee5 block: clear req->errors on bio completion only for fs requests pick 268ea3d block: merge blk_invoke_request_fn() into __blk_run_queue() pick d097b7d block: kill blk_start_queueing()
pick 3099167 block: don't set REQ_NOMERGE unnecessarily
pick 4095018 block: cleanup REQ_SOFTBARRIER usages
pick 17fc349 block: reorder request completion functions
pick 6e6732a block: reorganize request fetching functions
pick ca219b4 block: kill blk_end_request_callback()
pick ea1e706 block: clean up request completion API
pick 70a8607 block: move rq->start_time initialization to blk_rq_init() pick fa6e42b block: implement and use [__]blk_end_request_all()
pick 861af79 block: kill rq->data
pick 6abeea3 block: make blk_do_io_stat() do the full "is this rq accountable" checks pick 2f94129 block: catch trying to use more bits than request->cmd_flags has pick 325f440 block: implement blk_rq_pos/[cur_]sectors() and convert obvious ones pick 7168ea4 block: convert to pos and nr_sectors accessors
pick 209e1e4 block: drop request->hard_* and *nr_sectors
pick 80d23d0 block: hide request sector and data_len
pick 563e977 block: implement and enforce request peek/start/fetch
pick 6cd0982 block: move completion related functions back to blk-core.c pick 3978c4e block: set rq->resid_len to blk_rq_bytes() on issue
pick 01f54fd block: Add blk_make_request(), takes bio, returns a request pick 0d58792 block: add warning to blk_make_request()

How did you resolve the block/for-next and linus/master merge?

Thanks
Boaz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Quoted 8 lines · James Bottomley

Quoted 6 lines · James Bottomley

OK, so I think your pulling of my posmerge tree can cope with the fact that I did the necessary rebasing in block for-next before I made it the base of my combined tree .... think of this as a nice test.

Just building now ... if it works, I'll push to SCSI post merge and all our problems should go away.

Quoted 8 lines

Unfortunately the combined tree hits a BUG_ON blk-core.c:2045 when doing SPI domain validation.

There will be a short delay ...

James

I have rebased block/for-next onto linus/master which should give us the same content?

But line 2045 is on a code comment.

if I now do a git-log v2.6.30-rc3..HEAD I have the following patches:
pick 42dad76 block: simplify I/O stat accounting
pick af498d7 block: fix the bio_vec array index out-of-bounds test
pick d616ee5 block: clear req->errors on bio completion only for fs requests pick 268ea3d block: merge blk_invoke_request_fn() into __blk_run_queue() pick d097b7d block: kill blk_start_queueing()
pick 3099167 block: don't set REQ_NOMERGE unnecessarily
pick 4095018 block: cleanup REQ_SOFTBARRIER usages
pick 17fc349 block: reorder request completion functions
pick 6e6732a block: reorganize request fetching functions
pick ca219b4 block: kill blk_end_request_callback()
pick ea1e706 block: clean up request completion API
pick 70a8607 block: move rq->start_time initialization to blk_rq_init() pick fa6e42b block: implement and use [__]blk_end_request_all()
pick 861af79 block: kill rq->data
pick 6abeea3 block: make blk_do_io_stat() do the full "is this rq accountable" checks pick 2f94129 block: catch trying to use more bits than request->cmd_flags has pick 325f440 block: implement blk_rq_pos/[cur_]sectors() and convert obvious ones pick 7168ea4 block: convert to pos and nr_sectors accessors
pick 209e1e4 block: drop request->hard_* and *nr_sectors
pick 80d23d0 block: hide request sector and data_len
pick 563e977 block: implement and enforce request peek/start/fetch
pick 6cd0982 block: move completion related functions back to blk-core.c pick 3978c4e block: set rq->resid_len to blk_rq_bytes() on issue
pick 01f54fd block: Add blk_make_request(), takes bio, returns a request pick 0d58792 block: add warning to blk_make_request()

How did you resolve the block/for-next and linus/master merge?

If you actually just ask scsi-post-merge-2.6 where this line is, it will tell you:

static void blk_finish_request(struct request *req, int error)

{
        BUG_ON(blk_queued_rq(req));

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        if (blk_rq_tagged(req))
                blk_queue_end_tag(req->q, req);

James

Quoted 4 lines · James Bottomley

If you actually just ask scsi-post-merge-2.6 where this line is, it will tell you:

static void blk_finish_request(struct request *req, int error)

Quoted 10 lines

{
        BUG_ON(blk_queued_rq(req));

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        if (blk_rq_tagged(req))
                blk_queue_end_tag(req->q, req);

James

This is a new BUG_ON from:
block: implement and enforce request peek/start/fetch

It looks like there is one more sight of the old usage that was not converted.

Tejun?

Quoted 4 lines · James Bottomley

OK, so I think your pulling of my posmerge tree can cope with the fact that I did the necessary rebasing in block for-next before I made it the base of my combined tree .... think of this as a nice test.

Quoted 2 lines

Just building now ... if it works, I'll push to SCSI post merge and all our problems should go away.

Unfortunately the combined tree hits a BUG_ON blk-core.c:2045 when doing SPI domain validation.

There will be a short delay ...

That would preserve the logical sequence of patches, yes. However, Jens is a bit pressed for time, so I agreed to do this in SCSI.

Quoted 6 lines · Stephen Rothwell

Quoted 5 lines · On Tue, 19 May 2009 15:54:59 +0300 Boaz Harrosh <[email protected]> wrote:

This patch should be squashed into
[SCSI] FC Pass Thru support

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 2 lines

If it needs to compile after Tejun's block-layer revamps (all of them)

Is there some reason that the FC passthrough support (and any followup patches) can't be pushed through the block tree. It clearly currently doesn't depend on anything new in the scsi tree ...

That would preserve the logical sequence of patches, yes. However, Jens is a bit pressed for time, so I agreed to do this in SCSI.

Unfortuantely, I still need the block tree for-next to be rebased up to the current linus head because of a couple of conflicts:

CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in drivers/block/hd.c CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in drivers/block/mg_disk.c

The are both just rebase/rebase conflicts: it looks like there are two commit ids for

This patch should be squashed into
[SCSI] FC Pass Thru support

If it needs to compile after Tejun's block-layer revamps (all of them)