On 7/3/2014 9:00 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
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?
Hey James,
I think it's because of the cover-letter comment I gave in my initial
patchset:
"Although these patches involve 3 subsystems with different maintainers
(scsi, iser, target) I would prefer seeing these patches included together."
The set involved initiator-target wire protocol dependency.
I removed this comment in v1, v2 due to Roland's comment:
"Why? Because they break wire compatibility? I hate to say it but even
if they're merged at the same time,
you can't guarantee that targets and initiators will be updated together."
So I guess Nic just followed up on my request in order to avoid
wire-protocol breakage.
I assume the stable tag was there for the same reason.
Anyway, Sorry for all the fuss... I'll try to avoid such mistakes in the
future.
Sagi.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html