From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 011.lax.mailroute.net (011.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.14]) (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 4EA0733891D; Wed, 3 Dec 2025 15:55:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.14 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764777315; cv=none; b=WHt2C/Ww6k2JId/ZAdjVt3sD9D4bm+RqVPUNmiB8AfNQ1OYWOYdRS9hvZCYgQcOJOxUXul5IqsyyoUQ6l6nZemr8Mdxz4wRggCmOgIeKgalzuYopahzctSMKGfK8RRRR4agPt8EYtSbZvFA3y0qvCf96Lps5j3TDVCkcykFN+jQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764777315; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qr+HD8JTOLMGpC4ZatELM/KMquB3ZZXEJLWyu9fC8VA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=BRK5ulq2VqOnWztIUG8N67I2YD3Jk3VpNwtI3Kto8eOqaduSBBb+qKyud3pF0avquTdJ1GK3+RUgSLVqOTZutOugqPBZ2BAPhqzPow8TsXnAQz8aOt4fdS/vV0qvIGkho/XXpy0NOfb+HOqbeYB4Yb9tg0AyNztPnssRAzn4QGU= 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=OnAmIpKw; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.14 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="OnAmIpKw" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 011.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4dM2KD4nllz1XM6Jk; Wed, 3 Dec 2025 15:55:12 +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=1764777311; x=1767369312; bh=qr+HD8JTOLMGpC4ZatELM/KM quB3ZZXEJLWyu9fC8VA=; b=OnAmIpKwR6R4G1XlLg0z/hTDq5wnqw5KxovYUI2K Yn9mu5SKvUFsRey0LcYiSTXj3AK6lD2cjuxqMQTeHWe43BahhPeWK+JymfZDYIGL wjWfRoaCeQu1L0J04w5aF6qXRuMWHJjw5dbB3Z8tR3u89rNm7hvffDv9H9XXE5qX t0/dpbVO0VrucMdSpZRWmUP59WFxp0L1f9IQ5Na8CzFJCgCYRy6yMd3Edof9GbQx PKe50M2fchJfZJJppkvnFSoCMVapfwLiA9OKnPt8cLuPcBrKt4WvZ5QJ+Xn9j4zn yUHLy9v6dQGcwq6su7beoraPqkO3Eq/i2tMC7wkgfHRl5w== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 011.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (011.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id ctS-ESrFiAJ2; Wed, 3 Dec 2025 15:55:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.25.100.213] (syn-098-147-059-154.biz.spectrum.com [98.147.59.154]) (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 011.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4dM2K858zYz1XM6Jg; Wed, 3 Dec 2025 15:55:08 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <88900700-7f37-4c3e-878e-cf5f68f006cc@acm.org> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2025 05:55:06 -1000 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: [PATCH v2 1/1] scsi: core: Fix error handler encryption support To: Hannes Reinecke , Christoph Hellwig , Po-Wen Kao Cc: "James E.J. Bottomley" , "Martin K. Petersen" , "open list:SCSI SUBSYSTEM" , open list References: <20251203073310.2248956-1-powenkao@google.com> <34848777-b370-4a63-8b08-c3246d214167@suse.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: <34848777-b370-4a63-8b08-c3246d214167@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/2/25 10:42 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > There had been an intersection with the reserved command stuff, but > now that Bart has dusted things off there I guess I should give it > another go. Does that patch series perhaps involve allocating a reserved command from inside the SCSI error handler? Won't that break SCSI LLDs that restrict the queue depth to one? I think that the following SCSI LLDs only support one command (.can_queue = 1): * drivers/scsi/fdomain.c * drivers/scsi/mac53c94.c * drivers/scsi/ppa.c * drivers/scsi/imm.c * drivers/scsi/aha152x.c Thanks, Bart.