[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130821155314.GA17850@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:53:14 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Roland Dreier <roland@...estorage.com>
Cc: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...erainc.com>,
target-devel <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Martin Petersen <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com>,
James Bottomley <JBottomley@...allels.com>,
Nicholas Bellinger <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
Giridhar Malavali <giridhar.malavali@...gic.com>,
Chad Dupuis <chad.dupuis@...gic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] tcm_qla2xxx: Add special case for COMPARE_AND_WRITE
data_direction
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 07:38:21AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> I don't understand this. In fact the whole patch series looks quite
> confused. COMPARE AND WRITE is a normal Data-Out command, with no
> requirement for special bidirectional handling or anything like that.
> The only slightly unusual thing is that a CAW command with a NUMBER OF
> LOGICAL BLOCKS equal to N will actually transfer 2*N worth of data --
> one set of data for the compare operation and a second set to write if
> the compare succeeds. But just to be clear, the transfer of those 2*N
> blocks happens as a single transfer during the Data-Out phase.
I think the confusion is that the implementation of COMPARE AND WRITE
obviously requires a read and a write phase, and the implementation
tries to mix this up with an actual bidirectional scsi command.
If the core stopped keying off t_bidi_data_sg and used better flag
this could be easily solved.
--
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