From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ACF3C4707B for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:58:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=V8FKAtHagTGdp+uxF7N2+IP7iFiHuwdl75mB278C3X4=; b=34MsokLlGuxYLntp8K6QrQlK4V 7794k+wdVssY2exbYbWr/YkXE5gLQXFdIFAvJmfJb//6u/DNfyXMtZQuhEnX8x4mh47nrFBxkbXRC Wbn9qDM3re88uurbXndBh6fag5zF3lqMsQllMQubP2ESaAOU5qoTdH4h0IxUzYVsWFLR16Kp+5xYQ SoDYW8hH32CULGomXebwFzo+kkec9S9qKms+ZfxHg76QTYv6zBY8tVfpMwDk+vzIpZSYaTz7iNowe OPlqkcbaf2CupyQlRyZ6sMXLcxoe0oy+ZAq93g0C1hq8lM6DebrvblRfH1HdkmwStDUJDxvFzWVgT u4EktFfw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rNcpw-00DK8d-3D; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:57:57 +0000 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org ([2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rNcpu-00DK72-0c for linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:57:55 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC326617EA; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:57:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2AD99C433F1; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:57:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1704909472; bh=/aVUftzx5R6EVk2Wz8C/SG1p3tg9lFAKcrt2WO5Hq6Q=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=EKcO2UJw0ZM3KywBws0bnPDwwbfKKvx1NgVgWMcNCE0eWwWW29585tNE9ms2Njf0W TKf0bW+fj/ctPMv3KESY5iVQCJYzc8QjGeFTPAZqt50hFGoJfjExObL8+h3XD+noWT CzjosJfjr7/7qyRkVNfn2gXFqBlnh1YPT3ehlPfjOenObJPmW1dXMwKKDX4qip/Hrd CZHSV94psbBM8sPI/RM1f/s2h98nWjYTWx0KNVgYXnONyTsPN8x95uJXD0qWqbTTek bPpBdXZd5tzRIm53Wybh8OjMpRHVStXCaTf/RrQ8JHtdZyqohIBO5vhcZcaVfEz/AN 1WhoIZ1J9gPdQ== Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 10:57:49 -0700 From: Keith Busch To: Guixin Liu Cc: hch@lst.de, sagi@grimberg.me, kch@nvidia.com, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvmet: support reservation feature Message-ID: References: <20240109121008.15925-1-kanie@linux.alibaba.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240110_095754_293070_FB74F853 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 16.87 ) X-BeenThere: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-nvme" Errors-To: linux-nvme-bounces+linux-nvme=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 11:19:20AM +0800, Guixin Liu wrote: > 在 2024/1/10 01:01, Keith Busch 写道: > > > User space could be listening for them. The driver doesn't have any > > particular action to take on a PR event just send a uevent. > > I will analyze which uevents need to be send and implement the > notifications. Sorry, there's a part missing from my reply. I mean the host driver sends a uevent for unhandled AEN responses. The target doesn't do the uevent; it just needs to send an appropriate AEN when applicable. > > You're checking opcodes that we don't even support. I suggest we stash > > the Command Effects Log in our target and trust what that reports to > > deterimine if a command violates a reservation so that this function > > doesn't need to be kept in sync as new opcodes are created. > > You mean I should check the opcode is whether supported? > > If I put the checking after validating the opcode, is this still needed？ What I meant was using effects to see if a command would violate a reservation. For example, instead of explicitly defining a case for opcode nvme_write_cmd, you can check the log page for the LBCC attribute.