On Fri, 2017-07-07 at 14:14 +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> Nicholas,
>
> On 7/7/17 13:50, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > Hey MNC & Co,
> >
> > On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 12:44 -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
> >> On 06/28/2017 12:58 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> >>> If the user request handler completed the request with a CHECK CONDITION
> >>> status, tcmu_handle_completion() copies the command entry sense data
> >>> into the session request structure sense data. However, the sense data
> >>> length indicated by the field scsi_sense_length is not set and equal to
> >>> 0, resulting in the copy being a no-op and failure to propagate the
> >>> sense data back to the initiator. To fix this, properly set the session
> >>> command sense data length and also set the session command
> >>> SCF_TRANSPORT_TASK_SENSE flag to indicate that the command has valid
> >>> sense data.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <damien.lem...@wdc.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/target/target_core_user.c | 4 +++-
> >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_user.c
> >>> b/drivers/target/target_core_user.c
> >>> index beb5f09..7426b4c 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/target/target_core_user.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_user.c
> >>> @@ -831,7 +831,9 @@ static void tcmu_handle_completion(struct tcmu_cmd
> >>> *cmd, struct tcmu_cmd_entry *
> >>> entry->rsp.scsi_status = SAM_STAT_CHECK_CONDITION;
> >>> } else if (entry->rsp.scsi_status == SAM_STAT_CHECK_CONDITION) {
> >>> memcpy(se_cmd->sense_buffer, entry->rsp.sense_buffer,
> >>> - se_cmd->scsi_sense_length);
> >>> + TRANSPORT_SENSE_BUFFER);
> >>> + se_cmd->scsi_sense_length = TRANSPORT_SENSE_BUFFER;
> >>> + se_cmd->se_cmd_flags |= SCF_TRANSPORT_TASK_SENSE;
> >>> } else if (se_cmd->se_cmd_flags & SCF_BIDI) {
> >>> /* Get Data-In buffer before clean up */
> >>> gather_data_area(udev, cmd, true);
> >>>
> >>
> >> I have a patch similar to this and 5/5 in my set:
> >>
> >> https://www.spinics.net/lists/target-devel/msg15430.html
> >>
> >> If yours gets merged first then I will build my set over them, so patch
> >> looks ok to me.
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Mike Christie <mchri...@redhat.com>
> >
> > The RFC patches above from May 31st weren't merged because I thought you
> > where going to send out a second series..
>
> My apologies. I have been busy with other things and could not get to that.
>
> >
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/target-devel/msg15505.html
> >
> > Since that hasn't been the case, I'll go ahead and merge the bugfixes in
> > patches #1-6 for v4.13 now. :)
> >
> > Please resend patches #7-13 as post v4.13 items at your earliest
> > convenience.
>
> I will retest first thing Monday the merge with Mikes series and send
> incremental fixes if any is needed.
>
Great, thanks.
Everything including MNC's #1-6 and your #1-2 be pushed to
target-pending/for-next shortly.
Please use this as your base for testing. :)
