From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] target/iblock: Add WRITE_SAME w/ UNMAP=0 emulation support Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:29:46 -0800 Message-ID: <1353007786.4447.29.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> References: <1352405238-23267-1-git-send-email-nab@linux-iscsi.org> <1352405238-23267-4-git-send-email-nab@linux-iscsi.org> <20121115110432.GD28956@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121115110432.GD28956@infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: target-devel , linux-scsi , linux-kernel , Christoph Hellwig , "Martin K. Petersen" List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 06:04 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > + /* > > + * Enable WRITE_SAME emulation for IBLOCK, use scsi_debug.c default > > + */ > > Why would we care what scsi_debug.c uses? > Fixing up this comment based upon MKP's earlier response. > > + dev->dev_attrib.max_write_same_len = 0xFFFF; > > > > if (blk_queue_nonrot(q)) > > dev->dev_attrib.is_nonrot = 1; > > @@ -375,22 +379,80 @@ err: > > return ret; > > } > > > +static struct bio *iblock_get_bio(struct se_cmd *, sector_t, u32); > > +static void iblock_submit_bios(struct bio_list *, int); > > +static void iblock_complete_cmd(struct se_cmd *); > > I'd suggest moving the write_same callback below these to avoid > forward declarations. > Will take care of this in a separate patch.. > > + if (cmd->se_cmd_flags & SCF_WRITE_SAME_DISCARD) { > > I'd probably add separate write_same and write_same_unmap members to > the sbc_ops structure. That'll keep decoding which one is used in the > SBC code, and it'll keep the implementations nicely separated. > Done. > > + if (sectors > cmd->se_dev->dev_attrib.max_write_same_len) { > > This sort of check should stay in the SBC code. > Fixing this up now. > > + sg = &cmd->t_data_sg[0]; > > Btw, it seems like we don't bother to ensure the S/G list length > is just one sector for WRITE SAME with either the unmap bit set or not. > Well at least for the latter that is because UNMAP=0 does not have a payload. ;) Adding a check to ensure that we have one SGL, and that SGL length matches sector_size for UNMAP=0 logic. > Also please add testcases for WRITE SAME including corner cases like > incorrect transfer length to the scsi testsuite to ensure this code > has proper QA coverage. --nab