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=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, 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 AB553C47095 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 15:55:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F16C215A4 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 15:55:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=deltatee.com header.i=@deltatee.com header.b="WXydZ7GB" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728226AbgJGPzU (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2020 11:55:20 -0400 Received: from ale.deltatee.com ([204.191.154.188]:38954 "EHLO ale.deltatee.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726129AbgJGPzU (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2020 11:55:20 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=deltatee.com; s=20200525; h=Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Sender: Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender :Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=z5udLltffkLJI9drucFdIqOZx1b8+mVHzFbzJoFwRjY=; b=WXydZ7GBEWK47T6TzK1Ygl7ZLD XJpRfRj7nQ8y95YWRPJ8rSMDbithPdnei+IbZAZV88PQg+pdC9eLUqC2Ilk74agTD9c8y6teLM0rS H70jpSMtJmcnvH27CgZAvJyMAi3jUYgu+nRyTaHcRYa9/LcvGViT2F20MWlmihXjvYD77Eo5v/+qb qwxfw9DUtFgICIZn+38Vh64w4roruEtmkkCDbc6Z7rFFX2rL2hN3Mb6KVWdgZMwhK+aTyIX21hy85 GsnczW5aVnTHnEKtExl6qpkzYgOsDF3vpfA+TXsn7n4Kynjgpva4uuxaLdfDnQ5IRytwtKpYA8Ezk 36jhqs2g==; Received: from s01060023bee90a7d.cg.shawcable.net ([24.64.145.4] helo=[192.168.0.10]) by ale.deltatee.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kQBmf-0000Ah-KX; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 09:55:18 -0600 To: Chaitanya Kulkarni , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , Omar Sandoval Cc: Sagi Grimberg , Stephen Bates References: <20200930185422.11494-1-logang@deltatee.com> <20200930185422.11494-5-logang@deltatee.com> <517a5fd9-50eb-eb5e-5911-093dc5d1a759@deltatee.com> From: Logan Gunthorpe Message-ID: <39ab50dd-b117-2e53-a7ca-b390ade7dd1e@deltatee.com> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 09:55:17 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 24.64.145.4 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: sbates@raithlin.com, sagi@grimberg.me, osandov@osandov.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chaitanya.Kulkarni@wdc.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: logang@deltatee.com Subject: Re: [PATCH blktests v2 04/11] nvme: Search for specific subsysnqn in _find_nvme_loop_dev X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 08 May 2019 21:11:16 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on ale.deltatee.com) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On 2020-10-06 6:24 p.m., Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: > On 10/6/20 17:10, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: >>> With this patch or this series will I be able to write the testcase ? >> This patch helps with that but other helpers introduced in this series >> would require minor changes. >> >> As far as I can see, you'd only have to adjust _create_nvmet_passthru() >> to take an optional argument because, presently, it always uses >> $_test_dev_nvme_ctrl for the backing device. >> >> This can easily be done if and when someone writes such a test. >> >> However, I'm not even sure right now if that test would pass in the >> kernel as is -- it seems like an odd thing to do. >> >> Logan >> > This test should pass if I remember the code correctly where we don't > > have any PCIe specific checks for the passthru controller and it is an Yes, there's no explicit restrictions, but that doesn't mean there are no bugs with that particular stack. > important to support this scenario in order to write device independent > > testcases as rest of the testcases are. Ok, feel free to write a test for this. It's not important to me. Logan