Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
To:     Chaitanya Kulkarni <Chaitanya.Kulkarni@wdc.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>
Cc:     Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@raithlin.com>
References: <20200930185422.11494-1-logang@deltatee.com>
 <20200930185422.11494-5-logang@deltatee.com>
 <BYAPR04MB49657A481271ADC1F576377B860D0@BYAPR04MB4965.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <517a5fd9-50eb-eb5e-5911-093dc5d1a759@deltatee.com>
 <BYAPR04MB49650C6419A84705D04FFE63860A0@BYAPR04MB4965.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Message-ID: <39ab50dd-b117-2e53-a7ca-b390ade7dd1e@deltatee.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Oct 2020 09:55:17 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR04MB49650C6419A84705D04FFE63860A0@BYAPR04MB4965.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PATCH blktests v2 04/11] nvme: Search for specific subsysnqn in
 _find_nvme_loop_dev
Precedence: bulk


On 2020-10-06 6:24 p.m., Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> On 10/6/20 17:10, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> With this patch or this series will I be able to write the testcase ?
>> This patch helps with that but other helpers introduced in this series
>> would require minor changes.
>>
>> As far as I can see, you'd only have to adjust _create_nvmet_passthru()
>> to take an optional argument because, presently, it always uses
>> $_test_dev_nvme_ctrl for the backing device.
>>
>> This can easily be done if and when someone writes such a test.
>>
>> However, I'm not even sure right now if that test would pass in the
>> kernel as is -- it seems like an odd thing to do.
>>
>> Logan
>>
> This test should pass if I remember the code correctly where we don't
> 
> have any PCIe specific checks for the passthru controller and it is an

Yes, there's no explicit restrictions, but that doesn't mean there are no bugs
with that particular stack.

> important to support this scenario in order to write device independent
> 
> testcases as rest of the testcases are.

Ok, feel free to write a test for this. It's not important to me.

Logan