[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171103150203.GA11300@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 09:02:04 -0600
From: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Javier González <jg@...htnvm.io>,
sagi@...mberg.me, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Javier González <javier@...xlabs.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] nvme: do not check for ns on rw path
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists