On 11/27/20 9:47 AM, Brian King wrote:
> On 11/25/20 7:48 PM, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>> The logic for iterating over the Sub-CRQ responses is similiar to that
>> of the primary CRQ. Add the necessary handlers for processing those
>> responses.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c b/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c
>> index 6eaedda4917a..a8730522920e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c
>> @@ -3371,6 +3371,78 @@ static int ibmvfc_toggle_scrq_irq(struct ibmvfc_sub_queue *scrq, int enable)
>> return rc;
>> }
>>
>> +static void ibmvfc_handle_scrq(struct ibmvfc_crq *crq, struct ibmvfc_host *vhost)
>> +{
>> + struct ibmvfc_event *evt = (struct ibmvfc_event *)be64_to_cpu(crq->ioba);
>> +
>> + switch (crq->valid) {
>> + case IBMVFC_CRQ_CMD_RSP:
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + dev_err(vhost->dev, "Got and invalid message type 0x%02x\n", crq->valid);
>
> Is this correct? Can't we get transport events here as well?
Yes we can. We still handle them in the primary CRQ so at least for the time
being we can ignore them, but yeah we shouldn't log scary messages about them.
-Tyrel
>
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* The only kind of payload CRQs we should get are responses to
>> + * things we send. Make sure this response is to something we
>> + * actually sent
>> + */
>> + if (unlikely(!ibmvfc_valid_event(&vhost->pool, evt))) {
>> + dev_err(vhost->dev, "Returned correlation_token 0x%08llx is invalid!\n",
>> + crq->ioba);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (unlikely(atomic_read(&evt->free))) {
>> + dev_err(vhost->dev, "Received duplicate correlation_token 0x%08llx!\n",
>> + crq->ioba);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + del_timer(&evt->timer);
>> + list_del(&evt->queue);
>> + ibmvfc_trc_end(evt);
>> + evt->done(evt);
>> +}
>> +
>
>
>
