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 52562C5478A for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 18:04:25 +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-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=SVtj5UeLN9PzLE+nAc3He4Nr45+iGWDtonODqu2YIag=; b=JArJI4+DRlv76ahFHJ4BqZ43Ze U03zHOFq8GeRyNvnhhyu6RjAVgTAxmKzRrQOeT6I6Tde3eaoJDwXWW+fCvyFKF48GUK2ieRXgiT0i fKxDC7P30QJwkqD2O1Ek6sZmmmRFha4ZzPufTZNaoVRALUb/9pTw4OjIIEGVWR5eT0/RRohUysBxs 0BF+jDX3BrLbthkIwgG3mPsRUru1pRsUstQICqRgsJ9dGjxgJ4Io8lIkITshDIrqoVSepwuHNE8p0 ALVClQ63uVlsQ3fvtecdrNmQquIJCHuPGktKt94Vbz2BXLtKBpjODkIqLPXTunUozJdNGBdWlxxEP uLtlGy7g==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rcqxC-000000020zE-1Xhm; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 18:04:22 +0000 Received: from sin.source.kernel.org ([145.40.73.55]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rcqx9-000000020yk-42DZ for linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 18:04:21 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by sin.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB3E2CE1056; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 18:04:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9BBC0C433F1; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 18:04:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1708538657; bh=CZQzgLXnK0wfVh9AjBPaaAYevg83M6W8YPFqFEIq3Ls=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=HkZlqsNba/I8LjXS72j+mE53PIhJqcBnBnNysOlWO4TQc11r3BekpgSQjEinuCuFO xtgFu/YKINPsAdHUGhmyS1EbdxarffVXg6N6MiuD6K3nrXKWapbSf+UQE0bLZwO21+ 0VoZ6ic0UfcfX0KwYXcy24cm1hTMooIqRSnH5EpHLMl4inWycugFO/bZL4w4FGtLY1 AUg7ueCGOFIaLVCoLI5FpqzWdATYupWBVlBypqOekY62AdTqVdQloEtPbzoS7yhnxP poCvEI7GIJD9ruNHmq6j2TRBn+Y1dn1I6cl+AtjmzPFSojG/hu5A5rZ/eV6ml6tacR h/Ae47EqUdHlg== Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 11:04:13 -0700 From: Keith Busch To: Daniel Wagner Cc: James Smart , Christoph Hellwig , Sagi Grimberg , Hannes Reinecke , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] nvme-fc: fix blktests nvme/041 Message-ID: References: <20240221132404.6311-1-dwagner@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240221132404.6311-1-dwagner@suse.de> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240221_100420_203121_704091A3 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 16.31 ) 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, Feb 21, 2024 at 02:23:59PM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote: > As suggested by Keith I've merged the new flag for nvme-fabrics with the last > patch. I also added some information why nvme-fc is handling the initial connect > attempt differently as requested by Christoph. > > The new flag is called connect_async and the default is false/0. I've tested > with a patched nvme-cli/libnvme version and all looks good. When this series is > accepted I'll update nvme-cli/libnvme accordingly. Note, that even with an older > nvme-cli the blktests (especially nvme/041) will pass with a newer kernel. > > (nvme/048 is still fails but this is a different problem. On my TODO list) Series looks good to me. Sounds like it's not fixing any regressions, so I think this goes to the 6.9 branch. I'll wait till end of week for any other feedback before pushing anything out.