Re: status of drivers/scsi/scsi_tgt_lib.c

2014-01-30 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:58:36PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: I actually know of a customer using this (with a semi-proprietary target mode driver). I'll be asking him what his plans are. They are using the IBM pseries vscsi driver for that? It they actually adding out of tree kernel code

Re: status of drivers/scsi/scsi_tgt_lib.c

2014-01-30 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 01/30/2014 09:44 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:58:36PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: I actually know of a customer using this (with a semi-proprietary target mode driver). I'll be asking him what his plans are. They are using the IBM pseries vscsi driver for

Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] really large storage sectors - going beyond 4096 bytes

2014-01-30 Thread Mel Gorman
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 09:52:46PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:57:48AM +, Mel Gorman wrote: So far on the table is 1. major filesystem overhawl 2. major vm overhawl 3. use compound pages as they are today and hope it does not go completely to hell,

Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] ipr: Use pci_enable_msi_range() and pci_enable_msix_range()

2014-01-30 Thread Alexander Gordeev
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 02:26:52PM +0100, Alexander Gordeev wrote: Do you want me to rediff your patches on top of this one, or do you want to keep the entire MSI series together and do the rediff? Otherwise the patches seem fine. I would prefer the former. Hi Brian, I am sending the

[PATCH v2 1/2] ipr: Get rid of superfluous call to pci_disable_msi/msix()

2014-01-30 Thread Alexander Gordeev
There is no need to call pci_disable_msi() or pci_disable_msix() in case the call to pci_enable_msi() or pci_enable_msix() failed. Signed-off-by: Alexander Gordeev agord...@redhat.com --- drivers/scsi/ipr.c |2 -- 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git

[PATCH v2 2/2] ipr: Use pci_enable_msi_range() and pci_enable_msix_range()

2014-01-30 Thread Alexander Gordeev
As result deprecation of MSI-X/MSI enablement functions pci_enable_msix() and pci_enable_msi_block() all drivers using these two interfaces need to be updated to use the new pci_enable_msi_range() and pci_enable_msix_range() interfaces. Signed-off-by: Alexander Gordeev agord...@redhat.com ---

[PATCH] qla2xxx: eliminate dead code in qla24xx_process_bidir_cmd

2014-01-30 Thread Steven J. Magnani
Coverity reports that the test of req_data_len vs. rsp_data_len is dead code. This appears to be because the test occurs before any real assignment to either variable. Assuming that the sole in-tree execution path (QL_VND_DIAG_IO_CMD submitted via FC pass-through on a host /dev/bsg/X) does not

libsrp: remove unreachable kfree

2014-01-30 Thread Dave Jones
srp_iu_pool_alloc implements what seems like a standard common exit path with gotos but there's only one way to reach it. Additionally the kfree(q-items) is unreachable. fold the error path back into the if. Signed-off-by: Dave Jones da...@fedoraproject.org diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libsrp.c

[GIT PULL] target updates for v3.14-rc1

2014-01-30 Thread Nicholas A. Bellinger
Hi Linus! Here are the target-pending updates for the v3.14-rc1 merge window. Please pull from: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/nab/target-pending.git for-next The highlights this round include: - Add support for SCSI Referrals (Hannes) - Add support for T10 DIF into

Re: [PATCH v11 6/9] Make scsi_remove_host() wait until error handling finished

2014-01-30 Thread Bart Van Assche
On 06/25/13 18:13, Michael Christie wrote: On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Bart Van Assche bvanass...@acm.org wrote: On 06/25/13 15:45, James Bottomley wrote: On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 11:01 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: There is a difference though between moving the EH kthread_stop() call and the

Re: [PATCH v10 0/4] ata: Add APM X-Gene SoC SATA host controller support

2014-01-30 Thread Loc Ho
Hi Tejun, As it had being awhile, any issue with this version of the SATA drivers before I post the follow on errata patches? -Loc On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Loc Ho l...@apm.com wrote: This patch adds support for the APM X-Gene SoC SATA host controller. In order for the host controller

[PATCH] block devices: validate block device capacity

2014-01-30 Thread Mikulas Patocka
When running the LVM2 testsuite on 32-bit kernel, there are unkillable processes stuck in the kernel consuming 100% CPU: blkid R running 0 2005 1409 0x0004 ce009d00 0082 ffcf c11280ba 0060 560b5dfd 3111 00fe41cb ce009d00 d51cfeb0

Re: [PATCH] block devices: validate block device capacity

2014-01-30 Thread James Bottomley
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 15:40 -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote: When running the LVM2 testsuite on 32-bit kernel, there are unkillable processes stuck in the kernel consuming 100% CPU: blkid R running 0 2005 1409 0x0004 ce009d00 0082 ffcf c11280ba 0060 560b5dfd

Re: [PATCH] block devices: validate block device capacity

2014-01-30 Thread Mikulas Patocka
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, James Bottomley wrote: Why is this? the whole reason for CONFIG_LBDAF is supposed to be to allow 64 bit offsets for block devices on 32 bit. It sounds like there's somewhere not using sector_t ... or using it wrongly which needs fixing. The page cache uses unsigned

Re: [PATCH] block devices: validate block device capacity

2014-01-30 Thread James Bottomley
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 18:10 -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote: On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, James Bottomley wrote: Why is this? the whole reason for CONFIG_LBDAF is supposed to be to allow 64 bit offsets for block devices on 32 bit. It sounds like there's somewhere not using sector_t ... or using

Re: [PATCH] block devices: validate block device capacity

2014-01-30 Thread Mikulas Patocka
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, James Bottomley wrote: On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 18:10 -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote: On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, James Bottomley wrote: Why is this? the whole reason for CONFIG_LBDAF is supposed to be to allow 64 bit offsets for block devices on 32 bit. It sounds like

Re: [PATCH] block devices: validate block device capacity

2014-01-30 Thread James Bottomley
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 19:20 -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote: On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, James Bottomley wrote: On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 18:10 -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote: On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, James Bottomley wrote: Why is this? the whole reason for CONFIG_LBDAF is supposed to be to

Re: [PATCH] block devices: validate block device capacity

2014-01-30 Thread Mikulas Patocka
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, James Bottomley wrote: A device may be accessed direcly (by opening /dev/sdX) and it creates a mapping too - thus, the size of a mapping limits the size of a block device. Right, that's what I suspected below. We can't damage large block support on filesystems

Re: [PATCH v11 6/9] Make scsi_remove_host() wait until error handling finished

2014-01-30 Thread James Bottomley
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 20:46 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote: On 06/25/13 18:13, Michael Christie wrote: On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Bart Van Assche bvanass...@acm.org wrote: On 06/25/13 15:45, James Bottomley wrote: On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 11:01 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: There is a

Re: [PATCH v11 6/9] Make scsi_remove_host() wait until error handling finished

2014-01-30 Thread Bart Van Assche
On 01/31/14 06:58, James Bottomley wrote: On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 20:46 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote: On 06/25/13 18:13, Michael Christie wrote: Sorry but I'm afraid that making the SCSI core invoke a callback function from a device, target or host release function would create a new challenge,