Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 06 Jul 2014 15:27:35 +0300 | From | Sagi Grimberg <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |