lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH-FOR-38] target: Fix READ_CAPACITY_16 regression
    From
    Date
    On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 18:40 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 17:46:11 -0800 "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org> wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 17:17 -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
    > > > On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 15:52 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
    > > > > From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
    > > > >
    > > > > Hi James,
    > > > >
    > > > > This patch fixes a regression for READ_CAPACITY to trigger SAI READ_CAPACITY_16 for
    > > > > >= 0xffffffff virtual backends. This occured during v4.0.0-rc6 when the backend
    > > > > read_capacity* handlers where moved into generic target_core_cdb.c code, and the
    > > > > 'unsigned long long blocks_long' piece was dropped from target_emulate_readcapacity().
    > > > >
    > > > > This fix has been tested with TCM_Loop on .38-rc7 with lio-4.1 and is working as expected
    > > > > with large block virtual backends:
    > > > >
    > > > > [67826.897061] TARGET_CORE[loopback]->TPG[1]_LUN[0] - Adding READ-WRITE access for LUN in Demo Mode
    > > > > [67826.897061] scsi 7:0:1:0: Direct-Access LIO-ORG FILEIO 4.0 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
    > > > > [67826.900933] sd 7:0:1:0: [sdd] 2621440000001 512-byte logical blocks: (1.34 PB/1.19 PiB)
    > > > > [67826.901510] sd 7:0:1:0: [sdd] Write Protect is off
    > > > > [67826.901684] sd 7:0:1:0: [sdd] Mode Sense: 2f 00 00 00
    > > > >
    > > > > Please include into scsi-rc-fixes going to Linus for-38 mainline target code.
    > > >
    > > > So the piece you didn't say is that this only affects volumes >2TB
    > > > volume which misreport the capacity (which is actually what the bug
    > > > description should have been).
    > > >
    > > > That's hardly an oopsworthy fix at this stage ... I'll put it into misc
    > > > with a cc stable.
    > > >
    > >
    > > This has already been picked up by AKPM last week, and (I assume) will
    > > be queued to Linus for .38-FINAL via -mm.
    >
    > Not really. I often grab important-looking fixes which cross my
    > desk, in case they end up getting mis-scheduled or mislaid.
    >
    > > Considering that is a critical fix that is not trigger by some obsecure
    > > corner case, I am not sure why this would be deferred for for a
    > > v2.6.38.x release when we already have a proper fix in place..?
    >
    > 2.6.38.1 is OK. No sane people will run 2.6.38 anyway ;)

    Ok, thanks for the clarification here Andrew. A for .38.1 item it shall
    be.

    Best Regards,

    --nab



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-03-12 03:47    [W:0.022 / U:0.564 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site