linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] nvme-fc: Freeze queues before destroying them

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 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210709164257.hzbxrbgjnnooidqe@beryllium.lan>
Date:   Fri, 9 Jul 2021 18:42:57 +0200
From:   Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
To:     James Smart <jsmart2021@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] nvme-fc: Freeze queues before destroying them

Hi James,

On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 09:14:07AM -0700, James Smart wrote:
> Thanks for the note. that definitely helped follow what is being attempted.
> I also agree with Hannes that the comment from the rdma patch should also be
> present to understand what's going on.

Sure will do. Though this has to wait until I am back from holiday
though :)

> Looking at the patch - this is not done in the same place or manner as rdma.
> Freezing and stoppage is prior to cancelling and that doesn't correspond
> where this was added (this is after all cancellations). We also seem to be
> missing a nvme_sync_io_queues() call in the sequence as well. So I believe
> there's more work to be done on this patch.  I'll see what I can do.

Thanks!

> We really need to see about a common layer for transports. So much we do is
> similar. We were ok at the start, but we've drifted apart over time and the
> requirements to the core layer aren't propogating to all transports.

Yes, makes a lot of sense to me to sync the transports implementation a
bit more.

Thanks,
Daniel