From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sagi Grimberg Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 11/13] SCSI/libiscsi: Add check_protection callback for transports Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 10:08:54 +0200 Message-ID: <53143896.6080105@dev.mellanox.co.il> References: <1393499589-15633-1-git-send-email-sagig@mellanox.com> <1393499589-15633-12-git-send-email-sagig@mellanox.com> <531407FF.1040702@cs.wisc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <531407FF.1040702@cs.wisc.edu> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Christie , Sagi Grimberg Cc: roland@kernel.org, nab@linux-iscsi.org, oren@mellanox.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 3/3/2014 6:41 AM, Mike Christie wrote: > On 02/27/2014 05:13 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libiscsi.c b/drivers/scsi/libiscsi.c >> index 4046241..a58a6bb 100644 >> --- a/drivers/scsi/libiscsi.c >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/libiscsi.c >> @@ -395,6 +395,10 @@ static int iscsi_prep_scsi_cmd_pdu(struct iscsi_task *task) >> if (rc) >> return rc; >> } >> + >> + if (scsi_get_prot_op(sc) != SCSI_PROT_NORMAL) >> + task->protected = true; >> + >> if (sc->sc_data_direction == DMA_TO_DEVICE) { >> unsigned out_len = scsi_out(sc)->length; >> struct iscsi_r2t_info *r2t = &task->unsol_r2t; >> @@ -823,6 +827,33 @@ static void iscsi_scsi_cmd_rsp(struct iscsi_conn *conn, struct iscsi_hdr *hdr, >> >> sc->result = (DID_OK << 16) | rhdr->cmd_status; >> >> + if (task->protected) { >> + sector_t sector; >> + u8 ascq; >> + >> + /** >> + * Transports that didn't implement check_protection >> + * callback but still published T10-PI support to scsi-mid >> + * deserve this BUG_ON. >> + **/ >> + BUG_ON(!session->tt->check_protection); > Extra space before BUG_ON. I'll add. >> + >> + ascq = session->tt->check_protection(task, §or); >> + if (ascq) { >> + sc->result = DRIVER_SENSE << 24 | DID_ABORT << 16 | >> + SAM_STAT_CHECK_CONDITION; > I am not sure what the reason for the DID_ABORT is here. I do not think > we want that, because we just want scsi-ml to evaluate the sense error > part of the failure. It works ok today, but the DID_ABORT error can > possibly be evaluated before the sense so you might miss passing that > info to upper layers. That makes sense to me. I can remove DID_ABORT. > >> + scsi_build_sense_buffer(1, sc->sense_buffer, >> + ILLEGAL_REQUEST, 0x10, ascq); >> + sc->sense_buffer[7] = 0xc; /* Additional sense length */ >> + sc->sense_buffer[8] = 0; /* Information desc type */ >> + sc->sense_buffer[9] = 0xa; /* Additional desc length */ >> + sc->sense_buffer[10] = 0x80; /* Validity bit */ >> + >> + put_unaligned_be64(sector, &sc->sense_buffer[12]); >> + goto out; >> + } >> + } >> + > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html