On Fri, 2016-04-08 at 17:14 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:48:10PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > It looks like the isert_set_dif_domain() assignments of > > ib_sig_domain->sig.dif.* from dev->dev_attrib.block_size + friends is > > being zeroed before making it into mlx5_ib_post_send() -> > > IB_WR_REG_SIG_MR -> set_sig_umr_wr() -> set_sig_data_segment(). > > From my limited understanding that's not the case, even if the weird > printk about the bad block size might suggest it. > > I think what we have is the TARGET_PROT_DIN_INSERT / > TARGET_PROT_DOUT_STRIP case (probably the first), and thus > sig_attrs->mem.sig_type is set to IB_SIG_TYPE_NONE, but for some > reason the prot pointer is set, which will lead to this misleading > printk. Ah, yes. However, TARGET_PROT_DIN_INSERT / TARGET_PROT_DOUT_STRIP will only be happening in sbc_set_prot_op_checks() if fabric_prot = true for a backend that does not support PI. Eg: fabric_prot is for the special case where the fabric supports PI, but the backend does not, and the normal feature bits a device would expose for PI are emulated based upon the fabric protection features. Since your backend does support PI, cmd->prot_op should always be TARGET_PROT_*_PASS regardless. The other thing to check is that isert_get_sup_prot_ops() is returning TARGET_PROT_ALL when tpg->tpg_attrib.t10_pi = true. > > Does anyone know a recent working version of T10 PI in isert? There > aren't any recent-ish changes that look related. Sagi..? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
