On 06/26/2018 12:09 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 06/22/2018 04:52 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> This is a series with bug fixes and code simplifications mainly for the SCSI
>> target core. The following tests have been run against this patch series for
>> both the iSCSI and SRPT target drivers:
>> - Run the libiscsi conformance tests.
>> - For the SRP target driver, run the srp-test software.
>>
>> Please consider this patch series for kernel v4.19.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bart.
>>
>> Bart Van Assche (20):
>>   target: Use config_item_name() instead of open-coding it
>>   target: Avoid that EXTENDED COPY commands trigger lock inversion
>>   target: Move a list_del_init() statement
>>   target: Rename transport_init_session() into transport_alloc_session()
>>   target: Introduce transport_init_session()
>>   target: Make the session shutdown code also wait for commands that are
>>     being aborted
>>   target: Document when CMD_T_STOP and CMD_T_COMPLETE are set
>>   target: Simplify core_tmr_handle_tas_abort()
>>   target: Fold core_tmr_handle_tas_abort() into
>>     transport_cmd_finish_abort()
>>   target: Simplify transport_generic_free_cmd() (1/2)
>>   target: Simplify transport_generic_free_cmd() (2/2)
>>   target: Simplify the code for waiting for command completion
>>   target/iscsi: Reduce number of __iscsit_free_cmd() callers
>>   target/iscsi: Make iscsit_ta_authentication() respect the output
>>     buffer size
>>   target: Remove second argument from fabric_make_tpg()
>>   target/tcm_loop: Avoid that static checkers warn about dead code
>>   target: Do not duplicate the code that marks that a command has sense
>>     data
>>   target: Send unit attention condition even if the sense buffer is too
>>     small
>>   target: Fix handling of removed LUNs
>>   target: Remove se_dev_entry.ua_count
>>
> 
> Looks ok to me.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Mike Christie <mchristi@redhat.com>
> 
> Martin, there was going to be one conflict between my patches and Bart's
> set. I was not sure how you wanted to handle it because I was not sure
> which would be merged first.
> 
> The problem was that Bart's patch in this set:
> 
> [PATCH 02/20] target: Avoid that EXTENDED COPY commands trigger lock
> inversion
> 
> modified target_find_device and I was removing the last user of it in my
> set you just merged.
> 
> I attached a updated version of Bart's:
> 
> [PATCH 02/20] target: Avoid that EXTENDED COPY commands trigger lock
> inversion
> 
> that just removes target_find_device instead of fixing it up, so Bart
> does not have to resend/rework any of his patches.
> 

Sorry about this. I made that patch against the wrong version. Attached
is a updated patch made against Martin's for-next that was freshly pulled.