On 09/21/2017 05:02 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> I was looking at the ibmvfc code (trying to hook up libfc), and have
> found this definition:
>
> struct ibmvfc_fcp_rsp_info {
> __be16 reserved;
> u8 rsp_code;
> u8 reserved2[4];
> }__attribute__((packed, aligned (2)));
>
> in comparison, libfc has this:
>
> struct fcp_resp_rsp_info {
> __u8 _fr_resvd[3]; /* reserved */
> __u8 rsp_code; /* Response Info Code */
> __u8 _fr_resvd2[4]; /* reserved */
> };
>
> So both look _nearly_ identical, except the missing byte at the start.
> It might be inserted due to some compile alignment magic, but I'd rather
> not rely on this.
> Could you clarify if the two structures really are different, or if this
> is a simple oversight?
Looks like a bug to me. We should probably just have ibmvfc use the
libfc definition.
Tyrel - can you do this conversion and run a bit of regression testing?
Looking at the possible values of rsp_code, the most likely place where
this might cause us some issues is in TMF handling. I'm a little
worried this could result in a potential double completion in error
handling in some rare cases.... Tyrel - are you aware of any issues
like that, which this might explain?
Thanks,
Brian
--
Brian King
Power Linux I/O
IBM Linux Technology Center
