Re: [PATCH blktests v1 2/2] nvme/048: add reconnect after ctrl key change

From: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
To: Shinichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com>
Cc: Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@nvidia.com>,
	 Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
	"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
	 "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH blktests v1 2/2] nvme/048: add reconnect after ctrl key change
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:08:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3aeichb4fe6idz4zbdqunfp2kj72af64an6j3xvjdfka7fkx52@3shgtvvlaw4i> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <hidg7tztvsyak5kjlrvglwyd5kb4kaaqfwbztxcf7vzpmsv5rc@knbau5ucdigs>

On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 09:38:41AM +0000, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> On Mar 04, 2024 / 17:13, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > The re-authentication is a soft state, meaning unless the host has to
> > reconnect a key change on the target side is not observed. Extend the
> > current test with a forced reconnect after a key change. This
> > exercises the DNR handling code of the host.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
> 
> This looks a good improvement of the test case. I have two comments:
> 
> - The commit title says nvme/048, but it should be nvme/045.

Indeed :)

> - The helper functions nvmf_wait_for_state() and set_nvmet_attr_qid_max()
>   are exactly same as those in nvme/048, aren't they?
>   Probably, it's the better to move them to nvme/rc, as a preparation patch.

I forgot that we already had those two helpers. Sure, will do.