Re: [PATCH 06/13] ibmvfc: add handlers to drain and complete Sub-CRQ responses

[Brian King]

On 11/25/20 7:48 PM, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> The logic for iterating over the Sub-CRQ responses is similiar to that
> of the primary CRQ. Add the necessary handlers for processing those
> responses.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c b/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c
> index 6eaedda4917a..a8730522920e 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc.c
> @@ -3371,6 +3371,78 @@ static int ibmvfc_toggle_scrq_irq(struct ibmvfc_sub_queue *scrq, int enable)
>  	return rc;
>  }
>  
> +static void ibmvfc_handle_scrq(struct ibmvfc_crq *crq, struct ibmvfc_host *vhost)
> +{
> +	struct ibmvfc_event *evt = (struct ibmvfc_event *)be64_to_cpu(crq->ioba);
> +
> +	switch (crq->valid) {
> +	case IBMVFC_CRQ_CMD_RSP:
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		dev_err(vhost->dev, "Got and invalid message type 0x%02x\n", crq->valid);

Is this correct? Can't we get transport events here as well?

> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* The only kind of payload CRQs we should get are responses to
> +	 * things we send. Make sure this response is to something we
> +	 * actually sent
> +	 */
> +	if (unlikely(!ibmvfc_valid_event(&vhost->pool, evt))) {
> +		dev_err(vhost->dev, "Returned correlation_token 0x%08llx is invalid!\n",
> +			crq->ioba);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (unlikely(atomic_read(&evt->free))) {
> +		dev_err(vhost->dev, "Received duplicate correlation_token 0x%08llx!\n",
> +			crq->ioba);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	del_timer(&evt->timer);
> +	list_del(&evt->queue);
> +	ibmvfc_trc_end(evt);
> +	evt->done(evt);
> +}
> +



-- 
Brian King
Power Linux I/O
IBM Linux Technology Center