I haven't reviewed the whole patch, but noticed one thing: > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-scsi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-scsi- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Thursday, 16 October, 2014 12:37 AM ... > @@ -635,6 +646,54 @@ static void sd_prot_op(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd, > unsigned int dif) > scsi_set_prot_type(scmd, dif); > } > > +static void sd_config_cmp_and_write(struct scsi_disk *sdkp) > +{ > + if (sdkp->max_cmp_and_write_blocks > sdkp->max_xfer_blocks) { > + /* Invalid settings returned. Do not try to support for now > */ > + blk_queue_max_cmp_and_write_sectors(sdkp->disk->queue, 0); > + return; > + } > + > + /* > + * mult by 2, because the block layer wants the total number of > + * sectors that will be put in bios and transferred. > + */ > + blk_queue_max_cmp_and_write_sectors(sdkp->disk->queue, > + 2 * sdkp->max_cmp_and_write_blocks * > + (sdkp->device->sector_size >> 9)); > +} > + > +/** > + * sd_setup_cmp_and_write_cmnd - compare and write data > + * @cmd: scsi_cmnd to prepare > + **/ > +static int sd_setup_cmd_and_write_cmd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd) I suspect you intended to use setup_cmp_and_write rather than setup_cmd_and_write for that function name, to match sd_config_cmp_and_write ... > @@ -1134,6 +1193,8 @@ static int sd_init_command(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd) > return sd_setup_write_same_cmnd(cmd); > else if (rq->cmd_flags & REQ_FLUSH) > return sd_setup_flush_cmnd(cmd); > + else if (rq->cmd_flags & REQ_CMP_AND_WRITE) > + return sd_setup_cmd_and_write_cmd(cmd); > else > return sd_setup_read_write_cmnd(cmd); > } --- Rob Elliott HP Server Storage -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
