From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH-v2 0/6] vhost/scsi: Add T10 PI SGL passthrough support Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:45:31 +0300 Message-ID: <20140610184531.GA27760@redhat.com> References: <1400725582-5521-1-git-send-email-nab@daterainc.com> <20140609133026.GA6239@redhat.com> <1402383912.5774.13.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> <20140610094254.GC7423@redhat.com> <20140610215217.495d5476@canb.auug.org.au> <20140610130208.GA27702@redhat.com> <1402421957.23024.15.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:14083 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750888AbaFJSpV (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:21 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1402421957.23024.15.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" Cc: Stephen Rothwell , "Nicholas A. Bellinger" , target-devel , linux-scsi , Paolo Bonzini , "Martin K. Petersen" , Sagi Grimberg , Christoph Hellwig , Hannes Reinecke , "H. Peter Anvin" On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:39:17AM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:02 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 09:52:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:42:54 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > > > > > > > > So I see two options: > > > > - I go ahead with my changes and you with yours and let Linus resolve > > > > the conflict. This means bisect build will be broken since the > > > > breakage will likely not be noticed until after the merge. > > > > > > Well, since the resolution is known, the one who submits their tree > > > later should tell Linus (as suggested by Nicholas). That is part of > > > the point of the linux-next tree ... and therefore there would be no > > > bisect problem. > > > > > > > > Stephen (CC'ed) has included a fix in today's linux-next for the merge > > > > > conflict here: > > > > > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/10/3 > > > > > > > > > > Please confirm, as it will be a pointer to Linus within the > > > > > target-pending/for-next PULL request. > > > > > > > > Yes but this does mean people trying to bisect will > > > > hit build breakages, not nice. > > > > > > Not necessarily. > > > > > > -- > > > Cheers, > > > Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au > > > > > > I don't see how that's possible. > > Here's a point you might have missed. > > Nicholas's patch isn't just introducing a merge conflict. > > It is also buggy. > > Replacing bit access with has_feature silently fixes the bug. > > > > So if we want to avoid bisect breakage target tree will > > have to be rebased. > > > > And if doing that anyway, I don't see any reason not > > to merge everything through the vhost tree, esp > > since I already put the patches there. Less work for > > everyone involved. > > > > The problem is with Sagi's recent changes wrt to including T10 PI bytes > into expected data transfer length in target-core, you'll end up > introducing a different bug into your tree.. ;) > > Why don't I simply add Stephen's patch to use vhost_has_feature() in > target-pending/for-next, and we just make sure that the vhost PULL > request goes out after target-pending..? > > --nab Because that depends on vhost API changes :) -- MST