From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
"James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] core: Introduce scsi_get_sector()
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 13:10:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <yq1o8ddb64r.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <255c55c7-fbaf-9443-7d0d-16ebe0e37004@acm.org> (Bart Van Assche's message of "Fri, 14 May 2021 09:06:20 -0700")
Bart,
> or in other words, the starting offset divided by 512 is assigned to
> the reference tag instead of the starting offset divided by the
> logical block size. I think that's a bug.
It is. And I have most of these fixed in my integrity branch that
reworks how LLDs interact with the SCSI midlayer. I've only done
mpt3sas, qla2xxx, and lpfc because that's what I test with. I.e. I
missed zfcp and iser.
I will review your series shortly. But since all the integrity stuff is
transitioning to the t10_pi_foo* interfaces, my initial hunch is that we
probably just want to get rid of scsi_get_lba() completely and use
blk_rq_pos() directly for the places where we want block layer
addressing. I'm not a big fan of _pos() and like _sector() much
better. But I do think that the blk_ prefix makes it clear that we're
referring to sectors and not logical blocks, physical blocks, or
protection intervals.
Anyway. More in an hour or so...
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-14 17:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-13 22:37 [PATCH v3 0/8] Rename scsi_get_lba() into scsi_get_sector() Bart Van Assche
2021-05-13 22:37 ` [PATCH v3 1/8] core: Introduce scsi_get_sector() Bart Van Assche
2021-05-14 1:57 ` Damien Le Moal
2021-05-14 6:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-14 16:06 ` Bart Van Assche
2021-05-14 17:10 ` Martin K. Petersen [this message]
2021-05-13 22:37 ` [PATCH v3 2/8] iser: Use scsi_get_sector() instead of scsi_get_lba() Bart Van Assche
2021-05-14 1:57 ` Damien Le Moal
2021-05-13 22:37 ` [PATCH v3 3/8] zfcp: " Bart Van Assche
2021-05-14 1:58 ` Damien Le Moal
2021-05-17 17:23 ` Benjamin Block
2021-05-13 22:37 ` [PATCH v3 4/8] isci: " Bart Van Assche
2021-05-14 1:58 ` Damien Le Moal
2021-05-13 22:37 ` [PATCH v3 5/8] lpfc: " Bart Van Assche
2021-05-14 2:00 ` Damien Le Moal
2021-05-14 2:58 ` Bart Van Assche
2021-05-13 22:37 ` [PATCH v3 6/8] qla2xxx: " Bart Van Assche
2021-05-14 2:02 ` Damien Le Moal
2021-05-14 3:01 ` Bart Van Assche
2021-05-13 22:37 ` [PATCH v3 7/8] ufs: Fix the tracing code Bart Van Assche
2021-05-14 2:05 ` Damien Le Moal
2021-05-13 22:37 ` [PATCH v3 8/8] core: Remove scsi_get_lba() Bart Van Assche
2021-05-14 2:06 ` Damien Le Moal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=yq1o8ddb64r.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com \
--to=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox