On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 14:13 +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 04.06.2010 16:06, schrieb Kevin Wolf: > > Am 31.05.2010 03:43, schrieb Nicholas A. Bellinger: > >> From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> This patch updates hw/scsi-bus.c to add PERSISTENT_RESERVE_OUT and PERSISTENT_RESERVE_IN > >> case in scsi_req_length() to extra the incoming buffer length into SCSIRequest->cmd.xfer, > >> and adds a second PERSISTENT_RESERVE_OUT case in scsi_req_xfer_mode() in order to properly > >> set SCSI_XFER_TO_DEV for WRITE data. > >> > >> Tested with Linux KVM guests and Megasas 8708EM2 HBA emulation and TCM_Loop target ports. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Nicholas A. Bellinger <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> hw/scsi-bus.c | 5 +++++ > >> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/hw/scsi-bus.c b/hw/scsi-bus.c > >> index b8e4b71..75ec74e 100644 > >> --- a/hw/scsi-bus.c > >> +++ b/hw/scsi-bus.c > >> @@ -325,6 +325,10 @@ static int scsi_req_length(SCSIRequest *req, uint8_t *cmd) > >> case INQUIRY: > >> req->cmd.xfer = cmd[4] | (cmd[3] << 8); > >> break; > >> + case PERSISTENT_RESERVE_OUT: > >> + case PERSISTENT_RESERVE_IN: > >> + req->cmd.xfer = cmd[8] | (cmd[7] << 8); > > > > Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't exactly the same value set in the > > switch block above? (for cmd[0] >> 5 == 2) > > Nicholas? This isn't applied yet because I'm waiting for your answer. > > Is there a reason why it makes sense to do it explicitly here instead > using the generic code a few lines above? I think the same applied to > patch 2/2. Hi Kevin, I just tested this again and you are correct, the reassignment of req->cmd.xfer for PR and Maintence CDBs is unnecessary in scsi_req_length(). I will go ahead and drop part this from my tree. Please let me know if you would like me to resend the patch series. Best, --nab -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
