Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] qla2xxx_nvmet: Add files for FC-NVMe Target support

2018-10-26 Thread Madhani, Himanshu
Hi James, 

> On Oct 25, 2018, at 11:23 AM, James Smart  wrote:
> 
> External Email
> 
> On 9/28/2018 3:46 PM, Himanshu Madhani wrote:
>> + .target_features= NVMET_FCTGTFEAT_READDATA_RSP |
>> + NVMET_FCTGTFEAT_CMD_IN_ISR |
>> + NVMET_FCTGTFEAT_OPDONE_IN_ISR,
>> 
> 
> Himanshu,
> 
> I'm looking at these but had a quick question.   Did you really want the
> IN_ISR flags set ?  they schedule processing vs calling the nvmet
> routines inline. The intent was the queueing was only needed if in the
> hard isr routine. Last contact I had with your group said you were in
> soft isr routines and inline calling would be used.  I'm asking because
> I had intended to remove these flags/features.
> 
> -- james
> 

Looks like there was a miss to remove these flags when we rebased code on 
4.20/scsi-queue. 
After the original submission where this flag was present, we have removed this 
flag in our 
internal testing but the code sent out after rebase missed that update. I’ll 
send v4 with 
the flag removed. 

Please let me know you have any other comments that I can incorporate in v4 

Thanks,
- Himanshu



Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] qla2xxx_nvmet: Add files for FC-NVMe Target support

2018-10-25 Thread James Smart




On 9/28/2018 3:46 PM, Himanshu Madhani wrote:

+   .target_features= NVMET_FCTGTFEAT_READDATA_RSP |
+   NVMET_FCTGTFEAT_CMD_IN_ISR |
+   NVMET_FCTGTFEAT_OPDONE_IN_ISR,



Himanshu,

I'm looking at these but had a quick question.   Did you really want the 
IN_ISR flags set ?  they schedule processing vs calling the nvmet 
routines inline. The intent was the queueing was only needed if in the 
hard isr routine. Last contact I had with your group said you were in 
soft isr routines and inline calling would be used.  I'm asking because 
I had intended to remove these flags/features.


-- james