From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Marta Rybczynska <mrybczyn@kalray.eu>
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 <sjones@kalray.eu>,
Guillaume Missonnier <gmissonnier@kalray.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nvme: allow 64-bit results in passthru commands
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 15:16:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190816131606.GA26191@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <89520652.56920183.1565948841909.JavaMail.zimbra@kalray.eu>
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-16 13:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-16 9:47 [PATCH v2] nvme: allow 64-bit results in passthru commands Marta Rybczynska
2019-08-16 13:16 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2019-08-19 7:06 ` Marta Rybczynska
2019-08-19 14:49 ` Keith Busch
2019-08-19 15:57 ` James Smart
2019-08-19 18:56 ` Sagi Grimberg
2019-08-19 18:57 ` Keith Busch
2019-08-19 21:17 ` Sagi Grimberg
2019-08-19 21:21 ` Keith Busch
2019-08-21 23:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-22 0:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-26 11:20 ` Marta Rybczynska
2019-09-02 8:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190816131606.GA26191@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=gmissonnier@kalray.eu \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mrybczyn@kalray.eu \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=sjones@kalray.eu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).