From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753228AbdEPAAu (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 May 2017 20:00:50 -0400 Received: from esa1.hgst.iphmx.com ([68.232.141.245]:30737 "EHLO esa1.hgst.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753083AbdEPAAs (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 May 2017 20:00:48 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,346,1491235200"; d="scan'208";a="120490330" From: Bart Van Assche To: "jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "longli@microsoft.com" , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" CC: "sthemmin@microsoft.com" , "kys@microsoft.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: zero per-cmd driver data for each MQ I/O Thread-Topic: [PATCH] scsi: zero per-cmd driver data for each MQ I/O Thread-Index: AdLN0Sb+ho4t8yK3r0qgJIjNbdRb6AABlBKA Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 00:00:46 +0000 Message-ID: <1494892845.2567.14.camel@sandisk.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: linux.vnet.ibm.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;linux.vnet.ibm.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=sandisk.com; x-originating-ip: [63.163.107.100] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1;CY1PR0401MB1533;7:DFGE1WmBcPzz90jTTaNESxS+4MUTMxO32nJHSicv9KYKfPvYyd8Z4OHh6f045tL7LmzvnNhICiFsFthr9OmHA2g7OKBdmjyqc3zI3Ajgc+mp/Oy/H1woOKBjCHF5DMLTPOaRvFV7j+wOJsowatNM2ylCfMnBQjDcH2KR1vGKE2GgA7QnxeyWGFLg1D64Y9o9KkmO7UPrOCvkrRxPQyw2CrefzhDEfTrErrUt6lzBPSGv6qW4XirRh0ouJXhpzFqXWgS4hu/H3hefobyvWaVG5ywxbLFsxMrnof9kJhURB3z5rFPJzoCzDU5llBkfqT4rBDRDSXqOq6vdIYx782Tk/A==;20:geQY0OdmHDZRbTQifl6oGsgTYfyc2tejSe3RS9L9EP9oAo2eylGjDx9V2VWbyMza1de8I1bOQxCFKFHsaqN1cncO5XzOAa1BAMAcOK4LM9BzoFYQISz+IPNTWRSU5tCLQb57d6sWi9AbgHXu+3VQSpraX05vqZBNAeavqmNR6MI= x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f903bd02-93af-449f-29ae-08d49bee9ac0 x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(48565401081)(201703131423075)(201703031133081);SRVR:CY1PR0401MB1533; wdcipoutbound: EOP-TRUE x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123562025)(20161123564025)(20161123558100)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(6072148);SRVR:CY1PR0401MB1533;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR0401MB1533; x-forefront-prvs: 03094A4065 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(39410400002)(39840400002)(39850400002)(39400400002)(39860400002)(39450400003)(51884002)(24454002)(377424004)(2501003)(6436002)(6506006)(54356999)(50986999)(6486002)(77096006)(103116003)(2900100001)(4326008)(25786009)(76176999)(33646002)(2421001)(8936002)(122556002)(102836003)(3846002)(81166006)(8676002)(36756003)(6116002)(3660700001)(3280700002)(1511001)(2906002)(66066001)(305945005)(72206003)(229853002)(2201001)(8666007)(6246003)(5660300001)(189998001)(2950100002)(7736002)(86362001)(99286003)(38730400002)(53936002)(54906002)(478600001)(6512007);DIR:OUT;SFP:1102;SCL:1;SRVR:CY1PR0401MB1533;H:CY1PR0401MB1536.namprd04.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;MLV:sfv;LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: sandisk.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 May 2017 00:00:46.5227 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: b61c8803-16f3-4c35-9b17-6f65f441df86 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0401MB1533 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail.home.local id v4G016Xi009713 On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 23:32 +0000, Long Li wrote: > Thanks for looking! Yes this is for chasing a bug. > > With the patch, we also zero the private data used by lower layer driver, in > addition to the private data in scsi_cmnd. Hello Long, What bug did you encounter, with which combination of ULP (sd?) and LLD SCSI driver(s) and for which request type (REQ_OP_*)? You will have to mention that information in the patch description anyway if you want your patch to get accepted. If the bug that you encountered only occurs with a single LLD, would it be possible to implement a fix by modifying the LLD instead of the SCSI core? Thanks, Bart.