lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:19:08 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, stefanha@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] scsi_host: add support for request batching

On 19/06/19 12:31, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> I'm a bit unsure if 'bd->last' is always set; it's quite obvious that
>> it's present if set, but what about requests with 'bd->last == false' ?
>> Is there a guarantee that they will _always_ be followed with a request
>> with bd->last == true?
>> And if so, is there a guarantee that this request is part of the same batch?
> It's complicated.  A request with bd->last == false _will_ always be
> followed by a request with bd->last == true in the same batch.  However,
> due to e.g. errors it may be possible that the last request is not sent.
>  In that case, the block layer sends commit_rqs, as documented in the
> comment above, to flush the requests that have been sent already.
> 
> So, a driver that obeys bd->last (or SCMD_LAST) but does not implement
> commit_rqs is bound to have bugs, which is why this patch was not split
> further.
> 
> Makes sense?

Hannes, can you provide your Reviewed-by?

Thanks,

Paolo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists