From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net (009.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C18BED26A; Fri, 31 May 2024 20:46:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717188382; cv=none; b=iH2ym9itkJbPcx4O66cGqCraj3V31FMMu3gfzW2NNFHtnq3L9eMCIBB2XtVpfg7CbLRNYcnKYIuDYY4pHjuVLB4QrJ5BKjryprBlYNfYnj6+RCxIWL0dPNwTSxQoVPWgehxVxCGfW1AI2rMBVxFvxAicaUNQndBgTozjRP2edew= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717188382; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pjr/u4iW51zkvFJ1IfKSN6KTApRPaGINQ43FO4J9CGI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Dr0kIms9x6jO9PjnVYmasgHMqZ97PSxcYkTv6SDIbvg1yYyFIKXVhcxZ8tTh7RbeP8gU8i9hhueFzRyUH/IU3P8K7h7g8UE8fvc7L9RkXbhFhn46bRXwGFjjg/yLFw/yE48gd9DZlJvqS/w/+UZm2YXm5zSIonWaV8AtmHCf+Yw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=aIjFOs59; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="aIjFOs59" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4VrZsS1DQGzlgMVh; Fri, 31 May 2024 20:46:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1717188377; x=1719780378; bh=S1p76AS0cf6kXj0arrO4uHwv tCrK3sOZAIQUxCLQYjw=; b=aIjFOs59T8LcAZQap6j+YsIwrvOvf60UO4e7TfiN pFEQB2abUGrZfcrYKKrkKrB2647WdjDFKB6QJPBEGUU1FyrrFvMdVnauviSoI0hA 8Ka1eYWrrnBndgRXrYQjQUBJFhciyTRMhERfTmZPCsXskrnwnZCGQwt1XnP7/BtZ 07W9IhNa8k41tcYhKdlOBfPLYBvEupFBPNKEFRz046N7z2cgZzPv6Uww0mHjz2hf XOHvIDbeIENN+oDsEjNrWgbW4T3ZdS+EbpXu6pZaAsIbozHinVgWm+RrA5r3sWC4 jWpcpgKCAvcAjIM1NOQJZdB/ncuDWQDEbA7hhY+viPi9zQ== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (009.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id 3oVgloOHcuuQ; Fri, 31 May 2024 20:46:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.96.154.26] (unknown [104.132.0.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4VrZsP1vz8zlgMVf; Fri, 31 May 2024 20:46:17 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <81a63f38-fab0-4536-bbc2-3f06752a7f9e@acm.org> Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 13:46:16 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: blktests failures with v6.10-rc1 kernel To: Zhu Yanjun Cc: Shinichiro Kawasaki , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "nbd@other.debian.org" , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" References: <6cd21274-50b3-44c5-af48-179cbd08b1ba@linux.dev> <0a82785a-a417-4f53-8f3a-2a9ad3ab3bf7@acm.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 5/31/24 13:35, Zhu Yanjun wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 10:08=E2=80=AFPM Bart Van Assche wrote: >> >> On 5/31/24 13:06, Zhu Yanjun wrote: >>> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 10:01=E2=80=AFPM Bart Van Assche wrote: >>>> >>>> On 5/31/24 07:35, Zhu Yanjun wrote: >>>>> IIRC, the problem with srp/002, 011 also occurs with siw driver, do= you make >>>>> tests with siw driver to verify whether the problem with srp/002, 0= 11 is also > fixed or not? >>>> >>>> I have not yet seen any failures of any of the SRP tests when using = the siw driver. >>>> What am I missing? >> > >> > (left out a bunch of forwarded emails) >> >> Forwarding emails is not useful, especially if these emails do not ans= wer the question >> that I asked. >=20 > Bob had made tests with siw. From his mail, it seems that the similar > problem also occurs with SIW. I'm not aware of anyone other than Bob having reported failures of the SR= P tests in combination with the siw driver. Thanks, Bart.