From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754919AbdKCO5v (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 3 Nov 2017 10:57:51 -0400
Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:9041 "EHLO mga03.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750819AbdKCO5t (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 3 Nov 2017 10:57:49 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,339,1505804400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="1239376274"
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 09:02:04 -0600
From: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gonz=E1lez?= <jg@lightnvm.io>, sagi@grimberg.me,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gonz=E1lez?= <javier@cnexlabs.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] nvme: do not check for ns on rw path
Message-ID: <20171103150203.GA11300@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1509703370-20379-1-git-send-email-javier@cnexlabs.com>
 <1509703370-20379-2-git-send-email-javier@cnexlabs.com>
 <20171103125339.GA25186@lst.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171103125339.GA25186@lst.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.0 (2017-09-02)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 01:53:40PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > -	if (ns && ns->ms &&
> > +	if (ns->ms &&
> >  	    (!ns->pi_type || ns->ms != sizeof(struct t10_pi_tuple)) &&
> >  	    !blk_integrity_rq(req) && !blk_rq_is_passthrough(req))
> >  		return BLK_STS_NOTSUPP;
> 
> blk_rq_is_passthrough also can't be true here.
> 
> How about:
> 
> 	if (ns->ms && !blk_integrity_rq(req) &&
> 	    (!ns->pi_type || ns->ms != sizeof(struct t10_pi_tuple)))
> 		return BLK_STS_NOTSUPP;
> 
> Although I have to admit I don't really understand what this check
> is even trying to do.  It basically checks for a namespace that has
> a format with metadata that is not T10 protection information and
> then rejects all I/O to it.  Why are we even creating a block device
> node for such a thing?

If the namespace has metadata, but the request doesn't have a metadata
payload attached to it for whatever reason, we can't construct the command
for that format. We also can't have the controller strip/generate the
payload with PRACT bit set if it's not a T10 format, so we just fail
the command.