linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the target-updates tree

linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the target-updates tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3411 bytes --]

Hi Michael,

Today's linux-next merge of the vhost tree got a conflict in
drivers/vhost/scsi.c between commit 084ed45b3846 ("vhost/scsi: Convert to
se_cmd->cmd_kref TARGET_SCF_ACK_KREF usage") from the target-updates tree
and commit 3c63f66a0dcd ("vhost-scsi: Rename struct tcm_vhost_cmd *tv_cmd
to *cmd") from the vhost tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc drivers/vhost/scsi.c
index b351938,4264840..0000000
--- a/drivers/vhost/scsi.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/scsi.c
@@@ -446,19 -448,7 +448,19 @@@ static u32 tcm_vhost_tpg_get_inst_index
  
  static void tcm_vhost_release_cmd(struct se_cmd *se_cmd)
  {
- 	struct tcm_vhost_cmd *tv_cmd = container_of(se_cmd,
 -	return;
++	struct tcm_vhost_cmd *cmd = container_of(se_cmd,
 +				struct tcm_vhost_cmd, tvc_se_cmd);
 +
- 	if (tv_cmd->tvc_sgl_count) {
++	if (cmd->tvc_sgl_count) {
 +		u32 i;
- 		for (i = 0; i < tv_cmd->tvc_sgl_count; i++)
- 			put_page(sg_page(&tv_cmd->tvc_sgl[i]));
++		for (i = 0; i < cmd->tvc_sgl_count; i++)
++			put_page(sg_page(&cmd->tvc_sgl[i]));
 +
- 		kfree(tv_cmd->tvc_sgl);
++		kfree(cmd->tvc_sgl);
 +        }
 +
- 	tcm_vhost_put_inflight(tv_cmd->inflight);
- 	kfree(tv_cmd);
++	tcm_vhost_put_inflight(cmd->inflight);
++	kfree(cmd);
  }
  
  static int tcm_vhost_shutdown_session(struct se_session *se_sess)
@@@ -564,22 -555,28 +567,22 @@@ tcm_vhost_allocate_evt(struct vhost_scs
  	return evt;
  }
  
- static void vhost_scsi_free_cmd(struct tcm_vhost_cmd *tv_cmd)
+ static void vhost_scsi_free_cmd(struct tcm_vhost_cmd *cmd)
  {
- 	struct se_cmd *se_cmd = &tv_cmd->tvc_se_cmd;
+ 	struct se_cmd *se_cmd = &cmd->tvc_se_cmd;
  
  	/* TODO locking against target/backend threads? */
 -	transport_generic_free_cmd(se_cmd, 1);
 +	transport_generic_free_cmd(se_cmd, 0);
  
 -	if (cmd->tvc_sgl_count) {
 -		u32 i;
 -		for (i = 0; i < cmd->tvc_sgl_count; i++)
 -			put_page(sg_page(&cmd->tvc_sgl[i]));
 -
 -		kfree(cmd->tvc_sgl);
 -	}
 -
 -	tcm_vhost_put_inflight(cmd->inflight);
 +}
  
 -	kfree(cmd);
 +static int vhost_scsi_check_stop_free(struct se_cmd *se_cmd)
 +{
 +	return target_put_sess_cmd(se_cmd->se_sess, se_cmd);
  }
  
- static void tcm_vhost_do_evt_work(struct vhost_scsi *vs,
- 	struct tcm_vhost_evt *evt)
+ static void
+ tcm_vhost_do_evt_work(struct vhost_scsi *vs, struct tcm_vhost_evt *evt)
  {
  	struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = &vs->vqs[VHOST_SCSI_VQ_EVT].vq;
  	struct virtio_scsi_event *event = &evt->event;
@@@ -847,13 -850,13 +856,13 @@@ static void tcm_vhost_submission_work(s
  	} else {
  		sg_ptr = NULL;
  	}
- 	tv_nexus = tv_cmd->tvc_nexus;
+ 	tv_nexus = cmd->tvc_nexus;
  
  	rc = target_submit_cmd_map_sgls(se_cmd, tv_nexus->tvn_se_sess,
- 			tv_cmd->tvc_cdb, &tv_cmd->tvc_sense_buf[0],
- 			tv_cmd->tvc_lun, tv_cmd->tvc_exp_data_len,
- 			tv_cmd->tvc_task_attr, tv_cmd->tvc_data_direction,
- 			TARGET_SCF_ACK_KREF, sg_ptr, tv_cmd->tvc_sgl_count,
+ 			cmd->tvc_cdb, &cmd->tvc_sense_buf[0],
+ 			cmd->tvc_lun, cmd->tvc_exp_data_len,
+ 			cmd->tvc_task_attr, cmd->tvc_data_direction,
 -			0, sg_ptr, cmd->tvc_sgl_count,
++			TARGET_SCF_ACK_KREF, sg_ptr, cmd->tvc_sgl_count,
  			sg_bidi_ptr, sg_no_bidi);
  	if (rc < 0) {
  		transport_send_check_condition_and_sense(se_cmd,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the target-updates tree

[Nicholas A. Bellinger]

On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 13:47 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vhost tree got a conflict in
> drivers/vhost/scsi.c between commit 084ed45b3846 ("vhost/scsi: Convert to
> se_cmd->cmd_kref TARGET_SCF_ACK_KREF usage") from the target-updates tree
> and commit 3c63f66a0dcd ("vhost-scsi: Rename struct tcm_vhost_cmd *tv_cmd
> to *cmd") from the vhost tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> is required).
> 

Hi Stephen,

Can you briefly refresh my memory how the process of 'carrying the fix'
in linux-next should work..?

So once I send a -rc1 PULL request to Linus over the next days, and MST
sends one shortly there-after and hits a conflict, you'll include this
patch in a separate next-fixes branch for Linus to PULL..?

--nab

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the target-updates tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1536 bytes --]

Hi Nicholas,

On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:13:26 -0700 "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 13:47 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the vhost tree got a conflict in
> > drivers/vhost/scsi.c between commit 084ed45b3846 ("vhost/scsi: Convert to
> > se_cmd->cmd_kref TARGET_SCF_ACK_KREF usage") from the target-updates tree
> > and commit 3c63f66a0dcd ("vhost-scsi: Rename struct tcm_vhost_cmd *tv_cmd
> > to *cmd") from the vhost tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> > is required).
> > 
> 
> Can you briefly refresh my memory how the process of 'carrying the fix'
> in linux-next should work..?

That means that (assuming my fix is correct), I will continue to apply
that fix until your trees are merged into Linus' tree.  (git rerere is my
friend :-))

> So once I send a -rc1 PULL request to Linus over the next days, and MST
> sends one shortly there-after and hits a conflict, you'll include this
> patch in a separate next-fixes branch for Linus to PULL..?

No, Linus will figure it out just as I did.  If you want to give him a
hint, that 's fine.  The main intention of my "I fixed it up and can
carry the fix as necessary (no action is required)" is to just get you
guys to check that what I did was correct, and to dissuade you from
merging/rebasing/rewriting your tree(s) to eliminate the conflict.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the target-updates tree

[Nicholas A. Bellinger]

On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 13:27 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Nicholas,
> 
> On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:13:26 -0700 "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 13:47 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the vhost tree got a conflict in
> > > drivers/vhost/scsi.c between commit 084ed45b3846 ("vhost/scsi: Convert to
> > > se_cmd->cmd_kref TARGET_SCF_ACK_KREF usage") from the target-updates tree
> > > and commit 3c63f66a0dcd ("vhost-scsi: Rename struct tcm_vhost_cmd *tv_cmd
> > > to *cmd") from the vhost tree.
> > > 
> > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> > > is required).
> > > 
> > 
> > Can you briefly refresh my memory how the process of 'carrying the fix'
> > in linux-next should work..?
> 
> That means that (assuming my fix is correct), I will continue to apply
> that fix until your trees are merged into Linus' tree.  (git rerere is my
> friend :-))
> 
> > So once I send a -rc1 PULL request to Linus over the next days, and MST
> > sends one shortly there-after and hits a conflict, you'll include this
> > patch in a separate next-fixes branch for Linus to PULL..?
> 
> No, Linus will figure it out just as I did.  If you want to give him a
> hint, that 's fine.  The main intention of my "I fixed it up and can
> carry the fix as necessary (no action is required)" is to just get you
> guys to check that what I did was correct, and to dissuade you from
> merging/rebasing/rewriting your tree(s) to eliminate the conflict.
> 

Yes, of course.  I'll be sure to include a heads up in the PULL request.

Thanks again,

--nab