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=-10.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=unavailable 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 EDF19C4320A for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 10:20:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E4661248 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 10:20:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235955AbhHWKU6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2021 06:20:58 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:5856 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233399AbhHWKU5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2021 06:20:57 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 17NA7LdV139198; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 06:19:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : in-reply-to : references : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=2khlmwC0UBtryORxTWNt2Lfr5mMjyh5JncOw9A+tlOk=; b=Wb32jTSi+CZdSo/nge+nNIT04yvYiDEIJugCOsMt0m/UkaHdZ26erxCmTOhOQ5azcWkw T8RE0xQlbf0UannvC/JwHbL88mJrcEJ7TZuSC8/evbYOutGhGYCPHamGH9Lsu3IwGtaK +j8MLb/8O5VscRFiT9TEcjPH3DhEk+dBZFboSS/qeWYWCyYRkLL9rHl20AMd1HT6/Y6K Z5rtIvVT15oN61wnPfcXMz5OmVFPIek9cIh64KF8NnUhO/EWyIdPdHScN9lfr5WBya/q wv023Qd8qdSy+J4/BAu3kts+fXQUZsG1eVf0Jgn5X+9oRk6yzSX6QqZTxWEDG39J1Dzl zw== Received: from ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (6a.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.106]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3akf28k374-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 23 Aug 2021 06:19:56 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 17NAHJMO032476; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 10:19:54 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3ajs48jnm9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 23 Aug 2021 10:19:54 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 17NAJoh228180910 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 23 Aug 2021 10:19:50 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676C2AE058; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 10:19:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3804AE055; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 10:19:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-e979b1cc-23ba-11b2-a85c-dfd230f6cf82 (unknown [9.171.34.43]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 10:19:47 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:19:44 +0200 From: Halil Pasic To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , Jens Axboe , FUJITA Tomonori , Doug Gilbert , Kai =?UTF-8?B?TcOka2lzYXJh?= , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, oliver.sang@intel.com, Halil Pasic Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/24] scsi_ioctl: move the "block layer" SCSI ioctl handling to drivers/scsi Message-ID: <20210823121944.3403c096.pasic@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20210823064936.GA21806@lst.de> References: <20210724072033.1284840-1-hch@lst.de> <20210724072033.1284840-19-hch@lst.de> <20210823084316.4bb224e0.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20210823064936.GA21806@lst.de> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: W8qgIN0cXdXYRHpTyPcVxS0BChwUL6au X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: W8qgIN0cXdXYRHpTyPcVxS0BChwUL6au Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.790 definitions=2021-08-23_02:2021-08-23,2021-08-23 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2107140000 definitions=main-2108230067 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 08:49:36 +0200 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 08:43:16AM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: > > I believe there is a small problem with this patch. I think it is > > easiest to explain with the diff that fixes it. Please see the patch > > at the end of this email. > > > > Otherwise your patch looks great! > > > > This may or may not be related to the problem reported here: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/7/29/157 > > Adding Oliver, maybe he can test if this fixes his testcases as well. > > (It did fix ours.:) > > > > If you like I can respin my fix with an extended patch description. > > No this looks good, but to make sure Martin picks it up please send it > as a separate thread. It would be great it this fixes Olives issue, > but at least on my Debian systems blkid don't even call into SG_IO. > But maybe he has a different one or it is a cascading effect on that > particular setup. > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig This patch is directly based on f2542a3be327 ("scsi: scsi_ioctl: Move the "block layer" SCSI ioctl handling to drivers/scsi") from linux-next, and a simple rebase onto the tip of linux-next does not work because the block of code I'm about to modify got factored out into a function called scsi_ioctl_sg_io(). I'm not sure about the process of fixes in linux-next, so can please somebody (Christoph, Martin) tell me against what base should I post the respin (in a separate thread)? Thanks in advance! Halil