lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 8/9] nvmet-passthru: Add enable/disable helpers


On 2020-02-26 4:33 p.m., Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
>> +    if (subsys->ver < NVME_VS(1, 2, 1)) {
>> +        pr_warn("nvme controller version is too old: %d.%d.%d,
>> advertising 1.2.1\n",
>> +            (int)NVME_MAJOR(subsys->ver),
>> +            (int)NVME_MINOR(subsys->ver),
>> +            (int)NVME_TERTIARY(subsys->ver));
>> +        subsys->ver = NVME_VS(1, 2, 1);
>
> Umm.. is this OK? do we implement the mandatory 1.2.1 features on behalf
> of the passthru device?

This was the approach that Christoph suggested. It seemed sensible to
me. However, it would also *probably* be ok to just reject these
devices. Unless you feel strongly about this, I'll probably leave it the
way it is.

>> +    }
>> +
>> +    mutex_unlock(&subsys->lock);
>> +    return 0;
>> +
>> +out_put_ctrl:
>> +    nvme_put_ctrl(ctrl);
>> +out_unlock:
>> +    mutex_unlock(&subsys->lock);
>> +    return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void __nvmet_passthru_ctrl_disable(struct nvmet_subsys *subsys)
>> +{
>> +    if (subsys->passthru_ctrl) {
>> +        xa_erase(&passthru_subsystems, subsys->passthru_ctrl->cntlid);
>> +        nvme_put_ctrl(subsys->passthru_ctrl);
>> +    }
>> +    subsys->passthru_ctrl = NULL;
>> +    subsys->ver = NVMET_DEFAULT_VS;
>> +}
>
> Isn't it strange that a subsystem changes its version in its lifetime?

It does seem strange. However, it's not at all unprecedented. See
nvmet_subsys_attr_version_store() which gives the user direct control of
the version through configfs.

>> +
>> +void nvmet_passthru_ctrl_disable(struct nvmet_subsys *subsys)
>> +{
>> +    mutex_lock(&subsys->lock);
>> +    __nvmet_passthru_ctrl_disable(subsys);
>> +    mutex_unlock(&subsys->lock);
>> +}
>> +
>> +void nvmet_passthru_subsys_free(struct nvmet_subsys *subsys)
>> +{
>> +    mutex_lock(&subsys->lock);
>> +    __nvmet_passthru_ctrl_disable(subsys);
>> +    kfree(subsys->passthru_ctrl_path);
>> +    mutex_unlock(&subsys->lock);
>
> Nit, any reason why the free is in the mutex?

Nope. Will fix.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-27 18:37    [W:0.093 / U:0.912 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site