On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 09:33 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:27:48AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > I copy everyone on the patch. You were not on that patch as it doesn't
> > look like it went through your tree at all.
>
> It went through the target tree despite exclusive touching scsi
> initiator side code. I'm still not sure how this happened, but we
> should take care to avoid this in the future. In addition to this
> regression due to a complete lack of testing it also caused various
> merge issues.
OK, Nic cc'd
Please explain how this commit:
commit d77e65350f2d82dfa0557707d505711f5a43c8fd
Author: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed Jun 11 12:09:58 2014 +0300
libiscsi, iser: Adjust data_length to include protection information
In case protection information exists over the wire
iscsi header data length is required to include it.
Use protection information aware scsi helpers to set
the correct transfer length.
In order to avoid breakage, remove iser transfer length
checks for each task as they are not always true and
somewhat redundant anyway.
Signed-off-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Mike Christie <michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Mike Christie <michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 3.15+
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
drivers/infiniband/ulp/iser/iser_initiator.c | 34 ++++++++--------------------
drivers/scsi/libiscsi.c | 18 +++++++--------
Came to go through the target tree even though it's initiator only and
how come it was tagged for stable?
James
--
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
