On 07/26/2013 07:34 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 26/07/2013 11:20, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
>> - return !fn;
>> +
>> + vscsi_send_rsp(s, req, resp, 0, 0);
>
> We're not there yet, but getting closer...
Oh. Right. Sorry and thanks (ohci + ehci + vscsi at the same time and my
mind melted :) )
Is this better?
- vscsi_send_rsp(s, req, resp, 0, 0);
+ memset(iu, 0, sizeof(struct srp_rsp) + 4);
+ iu->srp.rsp.opcode = SRP_RSP;
+ iu->srp.rsp.req_lim_delta = cpu_to_be32(1);
+ iu->srp.rsp.tag = tag;
+ iu->srp.rsp.flags |= SRP_RSP_FLAG_RSPVALID;
+ iu->srp.rsp.resp_data_len = cpu_to_be32(4);
+ iu->srp.rsp.sol_not = (sol_not & 0x02) >> 1;
+ iu->srp.rsp.status = GOOD;
+ iu->srp.rsp.data[3] = resp;
+
+ vscsi_send_iu(s, req, sizeof(iu->srp.rsp) + 4, VIOSRP_SRP_FORMAT);
And it seems I found a bug in vscsi_send_rsp() (sol_not is always zero), heh.
> These response codes are _not_ SCSI status codes that go in the
> SRP_RSP's status field. They go (in the error case) in the "response
> data" field, so you have to set RSPVALID and set the first four bytes of
> the data[] array in the format that I mentioned before.
>
> The status field must be zero, because the spec says: "Response data
> shall not be provided in any SRP_RSP response that returns a non-zero
> status code in the STATUS field".
>
> Paolo
>
>> + return 1;
>> }
>>
>> static int vscsi_handle_srp_req(VSCSIState *s, vscsi_req *req)
>> diff --git a/hw/scsi/srp.h b/hw/scsi/srp.h
>> index 5e0cad5..d27f31d 100644
>> --- a/hw/scsi/srp.h
>> +++ b/hw/scsi/srp.h
>> @@ -90,6 +90,13 @@ enum {
>> SRP_REV16A_IB_IO_CLASS = 0x0100
>> };
>>
>> +enum {
>> + SRP_TSK_MGMT_COMPLETE = 0x00,
>> + SRP_TSK_MGMT_FIELDS_INVALID = 0x02,
>> + SRP_TSK_MGMT_NOT_SUPPORTED = 0x04,
>> + SRP_TSK_MGMT_FAILED = 0x05
>> +};
>> +
>> struct srp_direct_buf {
>> uint64_t va;
>> uint32_t key;
>>
>
--
Alexey
