2015-04-16 17:52 GMT+09:00 Sagi Grimberg <sa...@dev.mellanox.co.il>:
> On 4/15/2015 7:10 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Sagi" == Sagi Grimberg <sa...@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
>>
>>
>>>>> By the commit 436f4a0a ("loopback: Add fabric_prot_type attribute
>>>>> support"), When WRITE_SAME command with WRPROTECT=0 is executed,
>>>>> sbc_dif_generate() is called but cmd->t_prot_sg is NULL as block
>>>>> layer didn't allocate it for WRITE_SAME.
>>
>>
>> Sagi> Actually this is a bug. Why didn't the initiator allocate
>> Sagi> integrity meta-data for WRITE_SAME? Looking at the code it looks
>> Sagi> like it should.
>>
>> We don't issue WRITE SAME with PI so there is no prot SGL.
>>
>
> Is there a specific reason why we don't?It is not only for the WRITE SAME requests from block device but also for READ/WRITE with PROTECT=0 requests by SG_IO. So isn't is appropreate to allocate prot SGL in target_write_prot_action() (and mark se_cmd->se_cmd_flags to release it at deallocation time)? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
