On 5/29/2018 3:23 PM, Ruhl, Michael J wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: linux-rdma-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-rdma- >> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Wise >> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 2:26 PM >> To: axboe@xxxxxxxxx; hch@xxxxxx; Busch, Keith <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx>; >> sagi@xxxxxxxxxxx; linux-nvme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx; maxg@xxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: [PATCH v3 1/3] nvme-rdma: correctly check for target keyed sgl >> support >> >> The code was checking bit 20 instead of bit 2. Also fixed >> the log entry. >> >> Signed-off-by: Steve Wise <swise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/nvme/host/rdma.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/rdma.c b/drivers/nvme/host/rdma.c >> index 1eb4438..f11faa8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/rdma.c >> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/rdma.c >> @@ -1949,8 +1949,8 @@ static struct nvme_ctrl >> *nvme_rdma_create_ctrl(struct device *dev, >> } >> >> /* sanity check keyed sgls */ >> - if (!(ctrl->ctrl.sgls & (1 << 20))) { >> - dev_err(ctrl->ctrl.device, "Mandatory keyed sgls are not >> support\n"); >> + if (!(ctrl->ctrl.sgls & (1 << 2))) { >> + dev_err(ctrl->ctrl.device, "Mandatory keyed sgls are not >> supported!\n"); > I can see that the 2 and 20 are defined for specific things. Since they are > used in several places (in the next 2 patches), is there any chance these > could be defined bits? > > Mike > That seems reasonable. I would think these defines could also be shared across the host and target. Perhaps include/linux/nvme.h? I see both nvme/host/nvme.h and nvme/target/nvmet.h include linux/nvme.h. So they could go there. Christoph, what do you think? It seems like these are either nvme protocol bits or nvme/f protocol bits... Steve. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
