> Il giorno 12 feb 2018, alle ore 17:31, Bart Van Assche 
> <bart.vanass...@wdc.com> ha scritto:
> On 02/11/18 23:35, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> Also this smells a little bit like some spurious elevator call.
>> Unfortunately I have no clue on the cause.  To go on, I need at least
>> to reproduce it.  In this respect: Bart, could you please tell me how
>> to setup the offending configuration, and to cause the failure?
>> Possibly with just one, or at most two PCs.  I don't have fancier hw
>> at the moment.
> Hello Paolo,
> Although I expect that it is possible to reproduce this with an unmodified 
> v4.16-rc1 kernel, this is how I ran into this issue:
> * Clone the for-next branch of https://github.com/bvanassche/linux.
> * Build and install that kernel in a virtual machine.
> * Clone https://github.com/bvanassche/srp-test.
> * Run the following command:
>  srp-test/run_tests -c -d -r 10 -t 02-mq -e bfq

Hi Bart,
as a first attempt, I've followed your steps, but got:
Error: could not find sg_reset
expectedly because of dependencies that you are implying in your steps.

So, I have followed the instructions in the srp-test README for the
case "Running the Tests on an Ethernet Setup", directly on a 4.16-rc1.

For ib_srp-backport, I get a lot of warnings like the following one,
at "make install" (preceded by corresponding warnings at the end of
the compilation):
depmod: WARNING: /lib/modules/4.16.0-rc1+/extra/ib_srp.ko needs unknown symbol 

Unfortunately, it gets worse while executing "make scst srpt":

  CC [M]  /home/paolo/scst/srpt/src/ib_srpt.o
In file included from /home/paolo/scst/srpt/src/ib_srpt.c:62:0:
/home/paolo/scst/srpt/src/ib_srpt.h:481:8: error: redefinition of ‘struct 
 struct srp_login_req_rdma {
In file included from /home/paolo/scst/srpt/src/ib_srpt.h:44:0,
                 from /home/paolo/scst/srpt/src/ib_srpt.c:62:
/mnt/linux-dev/linux/include/scsi/srp.h:139:8: note: originally defined here
 struct srp_login_req_rdma {

Could you please give me some help, so as to not get lost among these issues?


> Thanks,
> Bart.

Reply via email to