On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 16:30 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:26:16AM +0000, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Hi MST, MKP, Paolo & Co, > > > > Here is the v2 patch series for adding T1O protection information (PI) > > SGL passthrough support between virtio-scsi LLD + vhost-scsi fabric > > endpoints. > > > > Following MST's recommendation, it includes the changes for using > > bytes intead of number of iovecs in virtio_scsi_cmd_req_pi along with > > the associated changes to virtio-scsi + vhost/scsi code. > > > > For vhost/scsi, this includes walking the leading iovec's length(s) > > to determine where protection payload ends, and real data payload > > starts. For virtio-scsi LLD code, this includes locating struct > > blk_integrity for using blk_rq_sectors + ->tuple_size to calculate > > the total bytes for outgoing cmd_pi->pi_bytes[out,in] values. > > > > The full list of changes from last series include: > > > > - Use pi_bytesout + pi_bytesin instead of niovs in virtio-scsi PI > > header (mst + paolo) > > - Add prot_pto=1 in tcm_vhost_submission_work() when no PI buffer > > exists (nab) > > - Get rid of req + cdb pointer casts in vhost_scsi_handle_vq (mst) > > - Ensure that virtio_scsi_cmd_req_pi processing happens regardless > > of data_num in vhost_scsi_handle_vq (nab) > > - Pass TARGET_PROT_ALL into transport_init_session_tags() (nab) > > - Convert vhost_scsi_handle_vq to use memcpy_fromiovecend() (mst) > > - Convert vhost_scsi_handle_vq to use pi_bytesout + pi_bytesin (nab) > > - Convert virtio_scsi_init_hdr_pi() to use pi_bytesout + pi_bytesin > > (mst + paolo + nab) > > - Use blk_integrity->tuple_size to calculate pi bytes (nab) > > > > Please review for v3.16-rc1 code. > > > > Thanks! > > > > --nab > > OK since this conflicts with my vhost locking > patches, I have rebased this and parked at vhost-review > branch in my tree. > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git vhost-review > > Nicholas could you please take a look at the patches and confirm this is > OK ASAP? > > If yes I will pack it all up and send to Linus. >From my experience, Linus prefers to fix this type of conflict on his own at merge time, instead of having subsystem maintainers rebase their for-next branches to include other's commits. Stephen (CC'ed) has included a fix in today's linux-next for the merge conflict here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/10/3 Please confirm, as it will be a pointer to Linus within the target-pending/for-next PULL request. --nab -- 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
