On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 07:22 -0700, Mike Christie wrote:
> Michael Chan wrote:
> > 
> > Here are the more generic NETLINK_ISCSI messages and the iscsi transport
> > code to support them, please review.
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_iscsi.c 
> > b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_iscsi.c
> > index d69a53a..60cb6cb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_iscsi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_iscsi.c
> > @@ -995,6 +995,39 @@ int iscsi_recv_pdu(struct iscsi_cls_conn *conn, struct 
> > iscsi_hdr *hdr,
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iscsi_recv_pdu);
> >  
> > +int iscsi_offload_mesg(struct Scsi_Host *shost,
> > +                  struct iscsi_transport *transport, uint32_t type,
> > +                  char *data, uint16_t data_size)
> > +{
> > +   struct nlmsghdr *nlh;
> > +   struct sk_buff *skb;
> > +   struct iscsi_uevent *ev;
> > +   int len = NLMSG_SPACE(sizeof(*ev) + data_size);
> > +
> > +   skb = alloc_skb(len, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > +   if (!skb) {
> > +           printk(KERN_ERR "can not deliver iscsi offload message:OOM\n");
> > +           return -ENOMEM;
> > +   }
> > +
> > +   nlh = __nlmsg_put(skb, 0, 0, 0, (len - sizeof(*nlh)), 0);
> > +   ev = NLMSG_DATA(nlh);
> > +   memset(ev, 0, sizeof(*ev));
> > +   ev->type = type;
> > +   ev->transport_handle = iscsi_handle(transport);
> > +   switch (type) {
> > +   case ISCSI_KEVENT_PATH_REQ:
> > +           ev->r.req_path.host_no = shost->host_no;
> > +   case ISCSI_KEVENT_IF_DOWN:
> > +           ev->r.notify_if_down.host_no = shost->host_no;
> > +   }
> > +
> > +   memcpy((char*)ev + sizeof(*ev), data, data_size);
> > +
> > +   return iscsi_broadcast_skb(skb, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> 
> You can sync up what the gfp flag used here and for the alloc_skb call 
> above. If you have process context, you probably want to use GFP_NOIO, 
> because this could be called for reconnect for a disk in use.
> 
> If you do not have process context then you would need to use GFP_ATOMIC.
> 
> 

We have process context, but I think we should make it more general for
other future drivers and use GFP_ATOMIC.

> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iscsi_offload_mesg);
> > +
> >  void iscsi_conn_error_event(struct iscsi_cls_conn *conn, enum iscsi_err 
> > error)
> >  {
> >     struct nlmsghdr *nlh;
> > @@ -1393,6 +1426,30 @@ iscsi_set_host_param(struct iscsi_transport 
> > *transport,
> >  }
> >  
> >  static int
> > +iscsi_set_path(struct iscsi_transport *transport, struct iscsi_uevent *ev)
> > +{
> > +   struct Scsi_Host *shost;
> > +   struct iscsi_path *params;
> > +   int err;
> > +
> > +   if (!transport->set_path)
> > +           return -ENOSYS;
> > +
> > +   shost = scsi_host_lookup(ev->u.set_path.host_no);
> > +   if (!shost) {
> > +           printk(KERN_ERR "set path could not find host no %u\n",
> > +                  ev->u.set_path.host_no);
> > +           return -ENODEV;
> > +   }
> > +
> > +   params = (struct iscsi_path *)((char*)ev + sizeof(*ev));
> > +   err = transport->set_path(shost, params);
> > +                                 
> > +   scsi_host_put(shost);
> > +   return err;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int
> >  iscsi_if_recv_msg(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh)
> >  {
> >     int err = 0;
> > @@ -1411,7 +1468,8 @@ iscsi_if_recv_msg(struct sk_buff *skb, struct 
> > nlmsghdr *nlh)
> >     if (!try_module_get(transport->owner))
> >             return -EINVAL;
> >  
> > -   priv->daemon_pid = NETLINK_CREDS(skb)->pid;
> > +   if (nlh->nlmsg_type != ISCSI_UEVENT_PATH_UPDATE)
> > +           priv->daemon_pid = NETLINK_CREDS(skb)->pid;
> >  
> 
> Instead of using broadcast above and in some other places and then doing 
> this check, could we just use multicast groups or something else? The 
> events from iscsid could be in one group and then events for uip would 
> be in another?

We need to do this check because we don't want the daemon_pid to be
overwritten with a pid that is not iscsid's.  If it was overwritten,
unicast NETLINK_ISCSI messages will not reach iscsid.

We can use multicast group 2 for the new messages if you prefer.  This
way, I think iscsid will not receive the new messages since it is only
listening on group 1.  The pid check will still be needed though.

> 
> Or is it more common to do it like this or will it break compat with 
> other tools if we change it?
> 



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"open-iscsi" group.
To post to this group, send email to open-iscsi@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
open-iscsi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-iscsi
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to