Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

gt; > This patch moves bsg-lib to allocate and setup the bsg_job ahead of time, > and allocate the sense data, which is used as reply buffer in bsg. > > Reported-by: Steffen Maier > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Block > Fixes: 82ed4db499b8 ("block: split scsi_request out of struc

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

river is supposed to provide storage for the sense buffer. The bsg-lib code failed to do so, though and will crash anytime it is used. This patch moves bsg-lib to allocate and setup the bsg_job ahead of time, and allocate the sense data, which is used as reply buffer in bsg. Reported-by: Steffen Mai

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

provide storage for the sense buffer. The bsg-lib code failed to do so, though and will crash anytime it is used. This patch moves bsg-lib to allocate and setup the bsg_job ahead of time, and allocate the sense data, which is used as reply buffer in bsg. Reported-by: Steffen Maier Signed

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

gt; > > all bsg users. > > > > > > > Huh? What additional copy? There is one reply-buffer and that is copied > > into the user-buffer should it contain valid data. Just like in your > > patch, neither you, nor me touches any of the copy-code. There is also >

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

gt; > > all bsg users. > > > > > > > Huh? What additional copy? There is one reply-buffer and that is copied > > into the user-buffer should it contain valid data. Just like in your > > patch, neither you, nor me touches any of the copy-code. There is also >

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 03:49:29PM +0200, Benjamin Block wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14:15AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > But patch 1 still creates an additional copy of the sense data for > > all bsg users. > > > > Huh? What additional copy

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 03:49:29PM +0200, Benjamin Block wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14:15AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > But patch 1 still creates an additional copy of the sense data for > > all bsg users. > > > > Huh? What additional copy

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14:15AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > But patch 1 still creates an additional copy of the sense data for > all bsg users. > Huh? What additional copy? There is one reply-buffer and that is copied into the user-buffer should it contain valid data. Just lik

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14:15AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > But patch 1 still creates an additional copy of the sense data for > all bsg users. > Huh? What additional copy? There is one reply-buffer and that is copied into the user-buffer should it contain valid data. Just lik

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

o, though and will crash anytime it is used. This patch moves bsg-lib to allocate and setup the bsg_job ahead of time, and allocate the sense data, which is used as reply buffer in bsg. Reported-by: Steffen Maier <ma...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Block <bbl...@linux.v

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

ash anytime it is used. This patch moves bsg-lib to allocate and setup the bsg_job ahead of time, and allocate the sense data, which is used as reply buffer in bsg. Reported-by: Steffen Maier Signed-off-by: Benjamin Block Fixes: 82ed4db499b8 ("block: split scsi_request out of struct request"

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

My point was that we now gurantee that that the sense data is not a stack pointer an a driver can DMA to it. Now for BSG the sense data is "just" abused as reply, but the point still stands - we don't want to pass a possible stack pointer to drivers in a data buffer because we want to

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

My point was that we now gurantee that that the sense data is not a stack pointer an a driver can DMA to it. Now for BSG the sense data is "just" abused as reply, but the point still stands - we don't want to pass a possible stack pointer to drivers in a data buffer because we want to

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

--->++ Used as _Output_ > | + max_len | | | User doesn't initialize > | (B)| | BSG Reply | User provides (op

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

--->++ Used as _Output_ > | + max_len | | | User doesn't initialize > | (B)| | BSG Reply | User provides (op

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

| | response--->++ Used as _Output_ | + max_len | || User doesn't initialize | (B)| | BSG Reply | User provides (optional) | | | e.g. struct fc_bsg_reply | m

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

| | response--->++ Used as _Output_ | + max_len | || User doesn't initialize | (B)| | BSG Reply | User provides (optional) | | | e.g. struct fc_bsg_reply | m

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

We can't use an on-stack buffer for the sense data, as drivers will dma to it. So we should reuse the SCSI init_rq_fn() for the BSG queues and/or implement the same scheme.

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/6] bsg: scsi-transport: add compile-tests to prevent reply-buffer overflows

Looks fine, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

We can't use an on-stack buffer for the sense data, as drivers will dma to it. So we should reuse the SCSI init_rq_fn() for the BSG queues and/or implement the same scheme.

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/6] bsg: scsi-transport: add compile-tests to prevent reply-buffer overflows

Looks fine, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig

[RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

In contrast to the normal SCSI-lib, the BSG block-queue doesn't make use of any extra init_rq_fn() to make additional allocations during request-creation, and the request sense-pointer is not used to transport SCSI sense data, but is used as backing for the bsg_job->reply pointer; that in t

[RFC PATCH 1/6] bsg: fix kernel panic resulting from missing allocation of a reply-buffer

In contrast to the normal SCSI-lib, the BSG block-queue doesn't make use of any extra init_rq_fn() to make additional allocations during request-creation, and the request sense-pointer is not used to transport SCSI sense data, but is used as backing for the bsg_job->reply pointer; that in t

[RFC PATCH 3/6] bsg: scsi-transport: add compile-tests to prevent reply-buffer overflows

The BSG implementations use the bsg_job's reply buffer as storage for their own custom reply structures (e.g.: struct fc_bsg_reply or struct iscsi_bsg_reply). The size of bsg_job's reply buffer and those of the implementations is not dependent in any way the compiler can currently check. To make

[RFC PATCH 3/6] bsg: scsi-transport: add compile-tests to prevent reply-buffer overflows

The BSG implementations use the bsg_job's reply buffer as storage for their own custom reply structures (e.g.: struct fc_bsg_reply or struct iscsi_bsg_reply). The size of bsg_job's reply buffer and those of the implementations is not dependent in any way the compiler can currently check. To make

URGENT REPLY FOR MORE DETAILS.

of your reply on your expression of Interest I will give you full details, on how the business will be executed I am open for negotiation. Thanks for your anticipated cooperation. Note you might receive this message in your inbox or spam or junk folder, depends on your web host or server network

URGENT REPLY FOR MORE DETAILS.

of your reply on your expression of Interest I will give you full details, on how the business will be executed I am open for negotiation. Thanks for your anticipated cooperation. Note you might receive this message in your inbox or spam or junk folder, depends on your web host or server network

KINDLY REPLY URGENTLY

Dear Friend I am contacting you on a business deal of $9,500,000.00 Million United States Dollars, ready for transfer into your own personal account and if we make this claim, we will share it on the ratio of 50% / 50% basis, I would like to assure you that it be 100% risk free and it will be

KINDLY REPLY URGENTLY

Dear Friend I am contacting you on a business deal of $9,500,000.00 Million United States Dollars, ready for transfer into your own personal account and if we make this claim, we will share it on the ratio of 50% / 50% basis, I would like to assure you that it be 100% risk free and it will be

Re: My Second Email to You, Pls Reply Me

Hello Dear, How are you doing? I hope you are doing well. I am writing as I have written to you previously without any response from you. I hope all is well with you.I will appreciate if you will acknowledge your receipt of this mail. Thank you and have a good day. Miss Naya Please Write Me

Re: My Second Email to You, Pls Reply Me

Hello Dear, How are you doing? I hope you are doing well. I am writing as I have written to you previously without any response from you. I hope all is well with you.I will appreciate if you will acknowledge your receipt of this mail. Thank you and have a good day. Miss Naya Please Write Me

[PATCH 4.11 05/36] ceph: choose readdir frag based on previous readdir reply

lowing circumstance. - client send request to read frag A - frag A has been fragmented into frag B and C. So mds fills the reply with contents of frag B - client wants to read next frag C. ceph_choose_frag(frag value of C) return frag A. The fix is using previous readdir reply to calculate next readdi

[PATCH 4.11 05/36] ceph: choose readdir frag based on previous readdir reply

send request to read frag A - frag A has been fragmented into frag B and C. So mds fills the reply with contents of frag B - client wants to read next frag C. ceph_choose_frag(frag value of C) return frag A. The fix is using previous readdir reply to calculate next readdir frag when possible

[PATCH 4.9 04/41] ceph: choose readdir frag based on previous readdir reply

lowing circumstance. - client send request to read frag A - frag A has been fragmented into frag B and C. So mds fills the reply with contents of frag B - client wants to read next frag C. ceph_choose_frag(frag value of C) return frag A. The fix is using previous readdir reply to calculate next readdi

[PATCH 4.9 04/41] ceph: choose readdir frag based on previous readdir reply

send request to read frag A - frag A has been fragmented into frag B and C. So mds fills the reply with contents of frag B - client wants to read next frag C. ceph_choose_frag(frag value of C) return frag A. The fix is using previous readdir reply to calculate next readdir frag when possible

Reply me back!!

I have been trying to reach you

Reply me back!!

I have been trying to reach you

Re: Reply Urgent

Hello, How are you doing? I have been sent to inform you that, We have an inheritance of a deceased client with your surname. Contact Mr Andrew Bailey Reply Email To: myinf...@gmail.com with your "Full Names" for more info. Thanks for your understanding. Reply ASAP thank you

Re: Reply Urgent

Hello, How are you doing? I have been sent to inform you that, We have an inheritance of a deceased client with your surname. Contact Mr Andrew Bailey Reply Email To: myinf...@gmail.com with your "Full Names" for more info. Thanks for your understanding. Reply ASAP thank you

[PATCH 3.10 076/268] libceph: verify authorize reply on connect

if (ret < 0) { + con->error_msg = "bad authorize reply"; + return ret; + } + } + switch (con->in_reply.tag) { case CEPH_MSGR_TAG_FEATURES: pr_err("%s%lld %s feature set mismatch," -- 2.8.0.rc2.1.gbe9624a

[PATCH 3.10 076/268] libceph: verify authorize reply on connect

ine ->verify_authorizer_reply(). +* See get_connect_authorizer(). +*/ + ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con, 0); + if (ret < 0) { + con->error_msg = "bad aut

RE: [RESEND][PATCH 07/10][SCSI]mpt2sas: Added Reply Descriptor Post Queue (RDPQ) Array support

.org; linux- > ker...@vger.kernel.org; Christoph Hellwig > Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH 07/10][SCSI]mpt2sas: Added Reply Descriptor > Post Queue (RDPQ) Array support > > > Sreekanth, > > > We need to satisfy this condition on those system where 32 bit dma > > consistent ma

RE: [RESEND][PATCH 07/10][SCSI]mpt2sas: Added Reply Descriptor Post Queue (RDPQ) Array support

.org; linux- > ker...@vger.kernel.org; Christoph Hellwig > Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH 07/10][SCSI]mpt2sas: Added Reply Descriptor > Post Queue (RDPQ) Array support > > > Sreekanth, > > > We need to satisfy this condition on those system where 32 bit dma > > consistent ma

Re: [RESEND][PATCH 07/10][SCSI]mpt2sas: Added Reply Descriptor Post Queue (RDPQ) Array support

Sreekanth, > We need to satisfy this condition on those system where 32 bit dma > consistent mask is not supported and it only supports 64 bit dma > consistent mask. So on these system we can't set > pci_set_consistent_dma_mask() to DMA_BIT_MASK(32). Which systems are you talking about? It

Re: [RESEND][PATCH 07/10][SCSI]mpt2sas: Added Reply Descriptor Post Queue (RDPQ) Array support

Sreekanth, > We need to satisfy this condition on those system where 32 bit dma > consistent mask is not supported and it only supports 64 bit dma > consistent mask. So on these system we can't set > pci_set_consistent_dma_mask() to DMA_BIT_MASK(32). Which systems are you talking about? It

Re: [RESEND][PATCH 07/10][SCSI]mpt2sas: Added Reply Descriptor Post Queue (RDPQ) Array support

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Martin K. Petersen <martin.peter...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Sreekanth" == Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.re...@avagotech.com> writes: > > Sreekanth, > > Sreekanth> 2. As per MPI Spec, each set of 8 reply descr

Re: [RESEND][PATCH 07/10][SCSI]mpt2sas: Added Reply Descriptor Post Queue (RDPQ) Array support

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >>>>>> "Sreekanth" == Sreekanth Reddy writes: > > Sreekanth, > > Sreekanth> 2. As per MPI Spec, each set of 8 reply descriptor post > Sreekanth> queues must have the same value for the u

I NEED YOUR REPLY,

person which i can work with.I will tell you more about me when i get a reply from you. I am awaiting to hear from you yours Princess joy J.zengo

I NEED YOUR REPLY,

person which i can work with.I will tell you more about me when i get a reply from you. I am awaiting to hear from you yours Princess joy J.zengo

[PATCH 4.10 064/111] mei: dont wait for os version message reply

equest. It is safe not waiting for the replay. First, the driver doesn't do anything with the replay second the connection is closed immediately, hence the packet will be just safely discarded in case it is received and last the driver won't get stuck if the firmware won't reply. Signed-off-by: Ale

[PATCH 4.10 064/111] mei: dont wait for os version message reply

for the replay. First, the driver doesn't do anything with the replay second the connection is closed immediately, hence the packet will be just safely discarded in case it is received and last the driver won't get stuck if the firmware won't reply. Signed-off-by: Alexander Usyskin Signed-off

Reply my email please!!!

claiming that his life is what matters most to them not the money. Can l work with you to claim it? I am the manager so I know the steps to take to make it legal without any problem. I will explain more when I get your reply. PLEASE REPLY VIA: mycontactss @ yandex.com Harrison --

Reply my email please!!!

claiming that his life is what matters most to them not the money. Can l work with you to claim it? I am the manager so I know the steps to take to make it legal without any problem. I will explain more when I get your reply. PLEASE REPLY VIA: mycontactss @ yandex.com Harrison --

QUICK REPLY

Hello I wish to know if you are able to handle a business transaction worth €70 million pounds with me for investment project that will benefit both of us. Keep this transaction top secret, to avoid jeopardizing this business transaction. As I await your urgent reply philipsmarthholdin

QUICK REPLY

Hello I wish to know if you are able to handle a business transaction worth €70 million pounds with me for investment project that will benefit both of us. Keep this transaction top secret, to avoid jeopardizing this business transaction. As I await your urgent reply philipsmarthholdin

[PATCH 3.16 101/370] libceph: verify authorize reply on connect

* Any connection that defines ->get_authorizer() +* should also define ->verify_authorizer_reply(). +* See get_connect_authorizer(). +*/ + ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con, 0); + if (ret < 0

[PATCH 3.16 101/370] libceph: verify authorize reply on connect

_reply(). +* See get_connect_authorizer(). +*/ + ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con, 0); + if (ret < 0) { + con->error_msg = "bad authorize reply"; + return ret; +

[PATCH 3.2 044/199] libceph: verify authorize reply on connect

fines ->get_authorizer() +* should also define ->verify_authorizer_reply(). +* See get_connect_authorizer(). +*/ + ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con, 0); + if (ret < 0

[PATCH 3.2 044/199] libceph: verify authorize reply on connect

_reply(). +* See get_connect_authorizer(). +*/ + ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con, 0); + if (ret < 0) { + con->error_msg = "bad authorize reply"; + return ret; +

[char-misc 2/2 for 4.11] mei: don't wait for os version message reply

packet will be just safely discarded in case it is received and last the driver won't get stuck if the firmware won't reply. Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org> #4.10+ Signed-off-by: Alexander Usyskin <alexander.usys...@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <tomas.wink...@intel.com> -

[char-misc 2/2 for 4.11] mei: don't wait for os version message reply

in case it is received and last the driver won't get stuck if the firmware won't reply. Cc: #4.10+ Signed-off-by: Alexander Usyskin Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler --- drivers/misc/mei/bus-fixup.c | 14 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/misc/mei

reply

. After unsuccessful attempts to locate his relations, I decided to contact you. Please, endeavour to reply me on my private email below to enhance effective communication and details on the above matter. This is my personal E-mail: (barrmaxwel...@hotmail.com). Thanks for your prompt response. Mrs

reply

. After unsuccessful attempts to locate his relations, I decided to contact you. Please, endeavour to reply me on my private email below to enhance effective communication and details on the above matter. This is my personal E-mail: (barrmaxwel...@hotmail.com). Thanks for your prompt response. Mrs

[PATCH 3/3] staging: lustre: llite: check reply status in ll_migrate()

From: Niu Yawei <yawei@intel.com> ll_migrate() should check reply status before trying to read reply buffer, checking if request is NULL doesn't make sense. Signed-off-by: Niu Yawei <yawei@intel.com> Intel-bug-id: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-8807 Review

[PATCH 3/3] staging: lustre: llite: check reply status in ll_migrate()

From: Niu Yawei ll_migrate() should check reply status before trying to read reply buffer, checking if request is NULL doesn't make sense. Signed-off-by: Niu Yawei Intel-bug-id: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-8807 Reviewed-on: https://review.whamcloud.com/23666 Reviewed-by: Andreas

[PATCH 40/60] staging: ptlrpc: leaked rs on difficult reply

From: Niu Yawei <yawei@intel.com> reply_out_callback() should call ptlrpc_schedule_difficult_reply() to finalize the rs if it's already not on uncommitted list, otherwise, the rs and the export held by rs could be leaked: - target_send_reply() sends a difficult reply before the trans

[PATCH 40/60] staging: ptlrpc: leaked rs on difficult reply

From: Niu Yawei reply_out_callback() should call ptlrpc_schedule_difficult_reply() to finalize the rs if it's already not on uncommitted list, otherwise, the rs and the export held by rs could be leaked: - target_send_reply() sends a difficult reply before the transaction committed, the reply

[PATCH 30/60] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: comment for FLD_QUERY RPC reply swab

From: Fan Yong <fan.y...@intel.com> The 'fld_read_server' uses 'RMF_GENERIC_DATA' to hold the 'FLD_QUERY' RPC reply that is composed of 'struct lu_seq_range_array'. But there is not registered swabber function for 'RMF_GENERIC_DATA'. So the RPC peers need to handle the RPC reply with fixed

[PATCH 30/60] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: comment for FLD_QUERY RPC reply swab

From: Fan Yong The 'fld_read_server' uses 'RMF_GENERIC_DATA' to hold the 'FLD_QUERY' RPC reply that is composed of 'struct lu_seq_range_array'. But there is not registered swabber function for 'RMF_GENERIC_DATA'. So the RPC peers need to handle the RPC reply with fixed little-endian format

[PATCH 3.12 061/235] libceph: verify authorize reply on connect

s->verify_authorizer_reply(con, 0); + if (ret < 0) { + con->error_msg = "bad authorize reply"; + return ret; + } + } + switch (con->in_reply.tag) { case CEPH_MSGR_TAG_FEATURES: pr_err("%s%lld %s feature set mismatch," -- 2.11.0

[PATCH 3.12 061/235] libceph: verify authorize reply on connect

t defines ->get_authorizer() +* should also define ->verify_authorizer_reply(). +* See get_connect_authorizer(). +*/ + ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con, 0); + if (ret < 0) { +

[PATCH 4.8 78/96] libceph: verify authorize reply on connect

* Any connection that defines ->get_authorizer() +* should also define ->verify_authorizer_reply(). +* See get_connect_authorizer(). +*/ + ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con, 0); + if (ret < 0

[PATCH 4.8 78/96] libceph: verify authorize reply on connect

_reply(). +* See get_connect_authorizer(). +*/ + ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con, 0); + if (ret < 0) { + con->error_msg = "bad authorize reply"; + return ret; +

[PATCH 4.9 095/116] libceph: verify authorize reply on connect

* Any connection that defines ->get_authorizer() +* should also define ->verify_authorizer_reply(). +* See get_connect_authorizer(). +*/ + ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con, 0); + if (ret < 0

[PATCH 4.9 095/116] libceph: verify authorize reply on connect

_reply(). +* See get_connect_authorizer(). +*/ + ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con, 0); + if (ret < 0) { + con->error_msg = "bad authorize reply"; + return ret; +

[PATCH 4.4 51/58] libceph: verify authorize reply on connect

* Any connection that defines ->get_authorizer() +* should also define ->verify_authorizer_reply(). +* See get_connect_authorizer(). +*/ + ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con, 0); + if (ret < 0

[PATCH 4.4 51/58] libceph: verify authorize reply on connect

_reply(). +* See get_connect_authorizer(). +*/ + ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con, 0); + if (ret < 0) { + con->error_msg = "bad authorize reply"; + return ret; +

Re: [PATCH RESEND v4 02/15] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

On 11/17/2016 07:09 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > Don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly, but use > helper variables bsg_request and bsg_reply. This will be helpfull when > transitioning to bsg-lib. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumsh...@s

Re: [PATCH RESEND v4 02/15] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

On 11/17/2016 07:09 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > Don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly, but use > helper variables bsg_request and bsg_reply. This will be helpfull when > transitioning to bsg-lib. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn > Reviewed-b

[PATCH v4 02/15] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

Don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly, but use helper variables bsg_request and bsg_reply. This will be helpfull when transitioning to bsg-lib. Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumsh...@suse.de> Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <h...@suse.com> --- drive

[PATCH v4 02/15] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

Don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly, but use helper variables bsg_request and bsg_reply. This will be helpfull when transitioning to bsg-lib. Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke --- drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_fc.c | 9 +- drivers/scsi/bfa

Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

ith my patches and without. > > Please ignore my last mails, apparently it's a wise idea to check which user > id one has before running zfcp_ping... > > The good news for this is, I can now recreate the crashes you have and thus > have a chance to fix them :-) So JFTR, I was a

Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

ith my patches and without. > > Please ignore my last mails, apparently it's a wise idea to check which user > id one has before running zfcp_ping... > > The good news for this is, I can now recreate the crashes you have and thus > have a chance to fix them :-) So JFTR, I was a

Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 03:31:27PM +0100, Steffen Maier wrote: > Hi Johannes, > > On 11/15/2016 12:56 PM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:43:14AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:38:21AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct

Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 03:31:27PM +0100, Steffen Maier wrote: > Hi Johannes, > > On 11/15/2016 12:56 PM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:43:14AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:38:21AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct

Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 03:31:27PM +0100, Steffen Maier wrote: > Hi Johannes, > > On 11/15/2016 12:56 PM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:43:14AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:38:21AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct

Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 03:31:27PM +0100, Steffen Maier wrote: > Hi Johannes, > > On 11/15/2016 12:56 PM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:43:14AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:38:21AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct

Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

Hi Johannes, On 11/15/2016 12:56 PM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:43:14AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:38:21AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:55:11PM +0200, Steffen Maier wrote: Hm, still behaves for me like

Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

Hi Johannes, On 11/15/2016 12:56 PM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:43:14AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:38:21AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:55:11PM +0200, Steffen Maier wrote: Hm, still behaves for me like

Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:43:14AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:38:21AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:55:11PM +0200, Steffen Maier wrote: > > > Hm, still behaves for me like I reported for v2: > > >

Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:43:14AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:38:21AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:55:11PM +0200, Steffen Maier wrote: > > > Hm, still behaves for me like I reported for v2: > > >

Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

quest; 5d54: e3 10 c0 18 00 04 lg %r1,24(%r12) struct fc_bsg_reply *bsg_reply = job->reply; 5d5a: e3 b0 c0 20 00 04 lg %r11,32(%r12) int cmdlen = sizeof(uint32_t); /* start with length of msgcode */ int ret; /* check if we re

Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

quest; 5d54: e3 10 c0 18 00 04 lg %r1,24(%r12) struct fc_bsg_reply *bsg_reply = job->reply; 5d5a: e3 b0 c0 20 00 04 lg %r11,32(%r12) int cmdlen = sizeof(uint32_t); /* start with length of msgcode */ int ret; /* check if we re

Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:38:21AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:55:11PM +0200, Steffen Maier wrote: > > Hm, still behaves for me like I reported for v2: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi=147637177902937=2 > > Hi Steffen, > > Can you please try the following on

Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:38:21AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:55:11PM +0200, Steffen Maier wrote: > > Hm, still behaves for me like I reported for v2: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi=147637177902937=2 > > Hi Steffen, > > Can you please try the following on

Re: [PATCH v2 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

@@ fc_bsg_request_handler(struct request_queue *q, > > > > struct Scsi_Host *shost, > > > > /* check if we have the msgcode value at least */ > > > > if (job->request_len < sizeof(uint32_t)) { > > > >

Re: [PATCH v2 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

@@ fc_bsg_request_handler(struct request_queue *q, > > > > struct Scsi_Host *shost, > > > > /* check if we have the msgcode value at least */ > > > > if (job->request_len < sizeof(uint32_t)) { > > > >

Re: [PATCH v2 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

> On 10/28/2016 01:31 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > On 10/28/2016 11:53 AM, Steffen Maier wrote: > >> On 10/13/2016 06:24 PM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > >>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:15:25PM +0200, Steffen Maier wrote: ... > fc_bsg_request_handler() > req->errors =

Re: [PATCH v2 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

> On 10/28/2016 01:31 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > On 10/28/2016 11:53 AM, Steffen Maier wrote: > >> On 10/13/2016 06:24 PM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > >>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:15:25PM +0200, Steffen Maier wrote: ... > fc_bsg_request_handler() > req->errors =

Re: [PATCH v2 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

3087864ce3d7282f59021245d8a5f83ef1caef18 is the first bad commit commit 3087864ce3d7282f59021245d8a5f83ef1caef18 Author: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumsh...@suse.de> Date: Wed Oct 12 15:06:28 2016 +0200 scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly Don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job:

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >