On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 20:31:26 +0100 Arne Redlich <arne.redlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2012/12/7 Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx>: > > Fix the compare and write opcode but leave it disabled. > > It looks like consumers like vmware may be assuming that IF > > compare and write is present and if it works, then the target will also > > implement other opcodes like XCOPY etc. > > > > So lets fix the command so that it works, but wait with enabling it > > until we have everything else that the main consumer of this rare opcode > > expects and wants. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > usr/bs_rdwr.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++---- > > 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > I suppose this fell through the cracks last time around since I didn't > get any feedback: how is atomicity of the CAW guaranteed? AFAIU, > another bs thread could modify the data while a CAW is going on, > breaking the expected semantics. Or am I just overlooking something in > the code? The spec requires such atomicity? Yeah, I'm too lazy to check the spec. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stgt" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
