[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ED65BA4.3000003@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:36:52 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
CC: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...hat.com>,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: virtio-scsi spec (was Re: [PATCH] Add virtio-scsi to the virtio
spec)
On 11/30/2011 03:17 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> seg_max is the maximum number of segments that can be in a
>> command. A bidirectional command can include seg_max input
>> segments and seg_max output segments.
>>
> I would like to have the other request_queue limitations exposed
> here, too.
> Most notably we're missing the maximum size of an individual segment
> and the maximum size of the overall I/O request.
The virtio transport does not put any limit, as far as I know.
> As this is the host specification I really would like to see an host
> identifier somewhere in there.
> Otherwise we won't be able to reliably identify a virtio SCSI host.
I thought about it, but I couldn't figure out exactly how to use it. If
it's just allocating 64 bits in the configuration space (with the
stipulation that they could be zero), let's do it now. Otherwise a
controlq command is indeed better, and it can come later.
But even if it's just a 64-bit value, then: 1) where would you place it
in sysfs for userspace? I can make up a random name, but existing user
tools won't find it and that's against the design of virtio-scsi. 2)
How would it be encoded as a transport ID? Is it FC, or firewire, or
SAS, or what?
> Plus you can't calculate the ITL nexus information, making
> Persistent Reservations impossible.
They are not impossible, only some features such as SPEC_I_PT. If you
use NPIV or iSCSI in the host, then the persistent reservations will
already get the correct initiator port. If not, much more work is needed.
> We should be adding
>
> VIRTIO_SCSI_S_BUSY
>
> for a temporary failure, indicating that a command retry
> might be sufficient to clear this situation.
> Equivalent to VIRTIO_SCSI_S_NEXUS_FAILURE, but issuing a retry on
> the same path.
... and equivalent to DID_BUS_BUSY. Assuming no other major objections,
I will add and resubmit in a few days.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists