lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3.15 099/139] libiscsi, iser: Adjust data_length to include protection information
On 7/3/2014 9:00 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 09:33 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:27:48AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> I copy everyone on the patch. You were not on that patch as it doesn't
>>> look like it went through your tree at all.
>> It went through the target tree despite exclusive touching scsi
>> initiator side code. I'm still not sure how this happened, but we
>> should take care to avoid this in the future. In addition to this
>> regression due to a complete lack of testing it also caused various
>> merge issues.
> OK, Nic cc'd
>
> Please explain how this commit:
>
> commit d77e65350f2d82dfa0557707d505711f5a43c8fd
> Author: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@mellanox.com>
> Date: Wed Jun 11 12:09:58 2014 +0300
>
> libiscsi, iser: Adjust data_length to include protection information
>
> In case protection information exists over the wire
> iscsi header data length is required to include it.
> Use protection information aware scsi helpers to set
> the correct transfer length.
>
> In order to avoid breakage, remove iser transfer length
> checks for each task as they are not always true and
> somewhat redundant anyway.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@mellanox.com>
> Reviewed-by: Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>
> Acked-by: Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 3.15+
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
>
> drivers/infiniband/ulp/iser/iser_initiator.c | 34 ++++++++--------------------
> drivers/scsi/libiscsi.c | 18 +++++++--------
>
> Came to go through the target tree even though it's initiator only and
> how come it was tagged for stable?

Hey James,

I think it's because of the cover-letter comment I gave in my initial
patchset:
"Although these patches involve 3 subsystems with different maintainers
(scsi, iser, target) I would prefer seeing these patches included together."
The set involved initiator-target wire protocol dependency.

I removed this comment in v1, v2 due to Roland's comment:
"Why? Because they break wire compatibility? I hate to say it but even
if they're merged at the same time,
you can't guarantee that targets and initiators will be updated together."

So I guess Nic just followed up on my request in order to avoid
wire-protocol breakage.
I assume the stable tag was there for the same reason.

Anyway, Sorry for all the fuss... I'll try to avoid such mistakes in the
future.

Sagi.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-06 15:01    [W:0.112 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site