All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Brian King <brking@us.ibm.com>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	mark.bergman@uphs.upenn.edu,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: block: don't check request size in blk_cloned_rq_check_limits()
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:30:55 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <575AC10F.7020504@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160610131901.GA28570@redhat.com>

On 06/10/2016 03:19 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Mon, May 30 2016 at  3:24am -0400,
> Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> wrote:
> 
>> When checking a cloned request there is no need to check
>> the overall request size; this won't have changed even
>> when resubmitting to another queue.
>> Without this patch ppc64le on ibmvfc fails to boot.
> 
> By simply removing the check aren't you papering over the real problem?
> Looking at Martin's commit f31dc1cd490539 (which introduced the current
> variant of the limits check) I'm not convinced it is equivalent to what
> he replaced.  I'll look closer in a bit.
> 
The check itself is wrong, as we need (at least) to check the
max_hw_sectors here; the request is already fully assembled, so there is
a really good chance he's going beyond the max_sectors.
But trying the error still was found to be present.
So I decided to rip it out, as the overall value of this check is zero.

> Also you categorized your fix was for "ppc64le on ibmvfc"; whereas Mark
> has reported this issue (off-list) against x86_64.  By making it seem
> ppc64le specific I didn't take this patch to be generally applicable.
> 
Well, it has been observed on ppc64. That doesn't mean _only_ ppc64 is
affected. If it were ppc64 only it should've been marked as such, right?

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		   Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare@suse.de			               +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N�rnberg
GF: F. Imend�rffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG N�rnberg)

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Brian King <brking@us.ibm.com>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	mark.bergman@uphs.upenn.edu,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: block: don't check request size in blk_cloned_rq_check_limits()
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:30:55 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <575AC10F.7020504@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160610131901.GA28570@redhat.com>

On 06/10/2016 03:19 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Mon, May 30 2016 at  3:24am -0400,
> Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> wrote:
> 
>> When checking a cloned request there is no need to check
>> the overall request size; this won't have changed even
>> when resubmitting to another queue.
>> Without this patch ppc64le on ibmvfc fails to boot.
> 
> By simply removing the check aren't you papering over the real problem?
> Looking at Martin's commit f31dc1cd490539 (which introduced the current
> variant of the limits check) I'm not convinced it is equivalent to what
> he replaced.  I'll look closer in a bit.
> 
The check itself is wrong, as we need (at least) to check the
max_hw_sectors here; the request is already fully assembled, so there is
a really good chance he's going beyond the max_sectors.
But trying the error still was found to be present.
So I decided to rip it out, as the overall value of this check is zero.

> Also you categorized your fix was for "ppc64le on ibmvfc"; whereas Mark
> has reported this issue (off-list) against x86_64.  By making it seem
> ppc64le specific I didn't take this patch to be generally applicable.
> 
Well, it has been observed on ppc64. That doesn't mean _only_ ppc64 is
affected. If it were ppc64 only it should've been marked as such, right?

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		   Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare@suse.de			               +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-10 13:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-05-30  7:24 [PATCH] block: don't check request size in blk_cloned_rq_check_limits() Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-10 13:19 ` Mike Snitzer
2016-06-10 13:30   ` Hannes Reinecke [this message]
2016-06-10 13:30     ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-10 14:18     ` Mike Snitzer
2016-06-11 10:05       ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-11 10:05         ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-11  2:22   ` Martin K. Petersen
2016-06-11 10:01     ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-11 10:01       ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-11 11:06       ` Martin K. Petersen
2016-06-11 13:10         ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-11 13:10           ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-13  8:07           ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-06-15  1:39           ` Martin K. Petersen
2016-06-15  2:29             ` Mike Snitzer
2016-06-15  2:32               ` Martin K. Petersen
2016-06-15  6:33             ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-15  6:33               ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-15 10:03               ` Jens Axboe
2016-06-15 10:33                 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-15 10:33                   ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-15 16:34                   ` Brian King
2016-06-16 12:35                     ` Mauricio Faria de Oliveira
2016-06-16 21:59                       ` Mauricio Faria de Oliveira
2016-06-17  6:59                         ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-06-17  6:59                           ` Hannes Reinecke

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=575AC10F.7020504@suse.de \
    --to=hare@suse.de \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=brking@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.bergman@uphs.upenn.edu \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.