Hi Xiubo ! On Mon, 2017-03-20 at 17:09 +0800, lixiubo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Xiubo Li <lixiubo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Changed for V3: > - [PATCHv2 2/5] fix double usage of blocks and possible page fault > call trace. > - [PATCHv2 5/5] fix a mistake. > > Changed for V2: > - [PATCHv2 1/5] just fixes some small spelling and other mistakes. > And as the initial patch, here sets cmd area to 8M and data area to > 1G(1M fixed and 1023M growing) > - [PATCHv2 2/5] is a new one, adding global data block pool support. > The max total size of the pool is 2G and all the targets will get > growing blocks from here. > Test this using multi-targets at the same time. > - [PATCHv2 3/5] changed nothing, respin it to avoid the conflict. > - [PATCHv2 4/5] and [PATCHv2 5/5] are new ones. > > > Xiubo Li (5): > tcmu: Add dynamic growing data area feature support > tcmu: Add global data block pool support > target/user: Fix possible overwrite of t_data_sg's last iov[] > target/user: Fix wrongly calculating of the base_command_size > target/user: Clean up tcmu_queue_cmd_ring > > drivers/target/target_core_user.c | 621 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 514 insertions(+), 107 deletions(-) > I've not been following the details of your TCMU efforts, so will have defer to MNC + AGrover for Acked-by + Reviewed-bys here. ;) One comment on the series ordering though.. Patches #1 + #2 introduce new features, while patches #3 + #4 are bug-fixes to (existing..?) code. AFAICT, patches #3 + #4 are stand-alone that don't depend on the new features. Is that correct..? If so, I'd prefer to apply #3 + #4 to target-pending/master for v4.11-rcX (eg: bug-fixes only), and include new features in #1 + #2 and cleanup in #5 to target-pending/for-next. (eg: next merge window for v4.12-rc1). Usually the preferred way when submitting patches is to always put bug-fixes first in the series, followed by new features, further cleanups, etc. That way it's easy for a maintainer to split out / cherry-pick bug-fixes from the series as necessary, without needing to worry about dependencies in the earlier patches. That said, if patch #3 + #4 are stand-alone bug-fixes, would you be so kind to re-order them at the head of the series, and re-submit..?
