From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E694C3A59C for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 13:16:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 678C920644 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 13:16:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727206AbfHPNQM (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:16:12 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:55485 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726597AbfHPNQL (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:16:11 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 0CE1A68B05; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 15:16:07 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 15:16:06 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Marta Rybczynska Cc: kbusch@kernel.org, axboe@fb.com, hch@lst.de, sagi@grimberg.me, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Samuel Jones , Guillaume Missonnier Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nvme: allow 64-bit results in passthru commands Message-ID: <20190816131606.GA26191@lst.de> References: <89520652.56920183.1565948841909.JavaMail.zimbra@kalray.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <89520652.56920183.1565948841909.JavaMail.zimbra@kalray.eu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sorry for not replying to the earlier version, and thanks for doing this work. I wonder if instead of using our own structure we'd just use a full nvme SQE for the input and CQE for that output. Even if we reserve a few fields that means we are ready for any newly used field (at least until the SQE/CQE sizes are expanded..). On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:47:21AM +0200, Marta Rybczynska wrote: > It is not possible to get 64-bit results from the passthru commands, > what prevents from getting for the Capabilities (CAP) property value. > > As a result, it is not possible to implement IOL's NVMe Conformance > test 4.3 Case 1 for Fabrics targets [1] (page 123). Not that I'm not sure passing through fabrics commands is an all that good idea. But we have pending NVMe TPs that use 64-bit result values as well, so this seems like a good idea in general.