Re: [RFC] FC pass thru - Rev IV

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 10:58:43 +0200
Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:24:58 -0500
> > James Smart <James.Smart@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I've reworked Seokmann's patch for the following items:
> >> - Add an fchost interface for bsg requests
> >>
> >> - Formalized the request/response structures that I expect
> >>   to have us stuff into the bsg cmd/sense data areas. These
> >>   are now genericized so we can essentially pass any kind of
> >>   transaction. It can be a request that has no transmit or
> >>   receive payload, and simply returns a response.
> >>
> >> - A new file was created, scsi_bsg_fc.h, which contains the
> >>   request/response data structures that should be shared
> >>   between the application and the kernel entities. 
> >>
> >> - I stripped out some things that were in the request
> >>   structure that were actually LLD fields. Instead, I added
> >>   a dd_bsgsize structure to the template, so the transport
> >>   will allocate LLD work space along with the job structure.
> >>   I expect the missing fields to move to this area.
> >>
> >> - I've made a strong attempt at ensuring that the request
> >>   has all the information necessary for the LLD, so that
> >>   there is no need to have the LLD remap the transmit payload
> >>   to figure things out. Granted, this comes at the cost of
> >>   replicating some data items.
> >>
> >>   Sven, I've added the CT information you needed as part of this.
> >>
> >> - I've renamed things quite a bit, hoping to make it clarity
> >>   better. The "service" struct is now a job. I still have
> >>   headaches with "request" (is it the blk request, or the job
> >>   request, or what..)
> >>
> >> - The CT/ELS response is a bit funky. I've noted that the
> >>   way Emulex returns a response, vs Qlogic is a bit different,
> >>   thus the 2 ways to indicate "reject".
> >>
> >> - fixed a couple of bugs in Seokmann's code, in the teardown,
> >>   error flows, request que dma settings, etc.
> >>
> >> - I added a "vendor_id" field to the scsi_host_template to
> >>   use when verifying that the recipient knows how to decode
> >>   vendor-specific message. I didn't do this with the netlink
> >>   things as I was prepping it to not break kabi in existing
> >>   and older kernels. But, I believe this is a good time to
> >>   add it.
> >>
> >> - I've started the Documentation/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.txt
> >>   documentation, but punted finishing it in lieu of sending
> >>   this RFC. I'm starting from Seokman's original emails and
> >>   will be updating for this reformat.
> >>
> >> I'm only starting to debug this, so user beware.
> >>
> >> I could really use some code review from Fujita or Boaz, to
> >> make sure I'm calling the right blk_xx completion functions
> >> relative to the setup flow, and to ensure that the "goose"
> >> when I jump out while the rport is blocked is correct.
> >>
> >> Comments welcome
> >>
> >> -- james s
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  Signed-off-by: James Smart <james.smart@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>  ---
> >>
> >>  Documentation/scsi/scsi_fc_transport.txt |   11 
> >>  Documentation/scsi/scsi_mid_low_api.txt  |    5 
> >>  drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c         |  581 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>  include/scsi/scsi_bsg_fc.h               |  291 +++++++++++++++
> >>  include/scsi/scsi_host.h                 |    9 
> >>  include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h         |   53 ++
> >>  6 files changed, 946 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > (snip)
> > 
> >> +/**
> >> + * fc_bsg_jobdone - completion routine for bsg requests that the LLD has
> >> + *                  completed
> >> + * @job:	fc_bsg_job that is complete
> >> + */
> >> +static void
> >> +fc_bsg_jobdone(struct fc_bsg_job *job)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct request *req = job->req->next_rq;
> >> +	struct request *rsp = req->next_rq;
> >> +	unsigned long flags;
> >> +	int err;
> 
> +	unsigned bytes_requested = 0;
> 
> >> +
> >> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&job->job_lock, flags);
> >> +	job->state_flags |= FC_RQST_STATE_DONE;
> >> +	job->ref_cnt--;
> >> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&job->job_lock, flags);
> >> +
> >> +	err = job->req->errors = job->reply->result;
> >> +	if (err < 0)
> >> +		/* we're only returning the result field in the reply */
> >> +		job->req->sense_len = sizeof(uint32_t);
> >> +	else
> >> +		job->req->sense_len = job->reply_len;
> >> +
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * we'll cheat: tell blk layer all of the xmt data was sent.
> >> +	 * but try to be honest about the amount of rcv data received
> >> +	 */
> >> +	if (rsp)
> >> +		blk_end_bidi_request(job->req, err, blk_rq_bytes(job->req),
> >> +	    			     job->reply->reply_payload_rcv_len);
> >> +	else
> >> +		blk_end_request(job->req, err, blk_rq_bytes(job->req));
> > 
> > I think that you can use blk_end_bidi_request() for non-bidi requests:
> > 
> > 	blk_end_bidi_request(job->req, err, blk_rq_bytes(job->req),
> > 			rsp ?
> > 			 job->reply->reply_payload_rcv_len : 0);
> > 
> > 
> > I guess that it would be better to have one function to complete a
> > request, instead of blk_end_bidi_request and blk_end_request.
> > 
> > 
> 
> +	/*
> +	 * tell blk layer all of the xmt data was sent.
> +	 * but set residual count to: requested - received
> +	 */
> +
> +	if (rsp) {
> +		bytes_requested = blk_rq_bytes(rsp);
> +		rsp->data_len = bytes_requested - job->reply->reply_payload_rcv_len;
> +	}
> +
> +	blk_end_bidi_request(job->req, err, blk_rq_bytes(job->req), bytes_requested);
> 
> The residual count is left in req->data_len. Does bsg have a way to return the
> residual to user-mode? It must, since Pete was using that for sure. Note that
> you are looking for the bidi_read residual count.

Yeah, bsg has. struct sg_io_v4 has:

__s32 din_resid;	/* [o] din_xfer_len - actual_din_xfer_len */
__s32 dout_resid;	/* [o] dout_xfer_len - actual_dout_xfer_len */


> As was said by people. You must complete ALL bytes on both sides. Residual information
> is passed through req->data_len. Other wise the request is still active.
> 
> (And yes blk_end_request uses blk_end_bidi_request internally)

We always complete all bytes on both sides. So why we do something
like:

int blk_end_request(struct request *rq, int error, unsigned int nr_bytes)
{
	unsigned int bidi_bytes	= 0;

	if (blk_bidi_rq(rq))
		bidi_bytes = req->next_rq->data_len;

	return blk_end_io(rq, error, nr_bytes, bidi_bytes, NULL);
}

The callers can do something like:

blk_end_request(rq, err, rq->data_len);
rq-->next_rq->data_len = resid;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux