Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2023 09:00:47 +0200
From:   Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
To:     Shinichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com>
Cc:     "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@nvidia.com>,
        Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
        James Smart <jsmart2021@gmail.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH blktests v2 00/12] Switch to allowed_host
Message-ID: <2u7xe3szftmoeicayxahqt6r44lgkwl6owvmlkjpby4mqvu6hh@pq2gfkgw6p6e>
References: <20230810111317.25273-1-dwagner@suse.de>
 <xpoocad2nthor6naxp35h5qiz3oqxpijp5qds5qao6aguh6fp5@6fyygawm7kfq>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <xpoocad2nthor6naxp35h5qiz3oqxpijp5qds5qao6aguh6fp5@6fyygawm7kfq>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 06:16:45AM +0000, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> > So we could return the nvmedev from _nvme_connect_subsys() but I don't know if
> > this a good idea.
> 
> IMO, it is a good idea to make _nvme_connect_subsys() return the device. The
> similar function _nvmet_passthru_target_connect() does that, so it is another
> small goodness to have consistency between the two.

Sure, I'll look into this when I remove the udev trigger filter code
again which resulted in this series. But let's get this series sorted
out first.

> > FWIW, it would also fix the current problem we face with
> > nvme/047 which seems to lack the second _find_nvme_dev() call.
> 
> I posted the fix patch for the nvme/047 problem reflecting your comments. I hope
> that fix settled before further refactoring.

Yep, let's get the bug fix in first.

> It is a fun to see the much of the boiler plates go away with the
> series :)

Ineed, makes the test way smaller.

BTW, what do you think about removing nvme/006 and nvme/007? They are
basically doing nothing anymore except setting up a target with either
device or file backing. We exercise this code now in all the other
tests. So this is bit redundant IMO.

> Thanks. I provided two minor comments on the 5th patch and 10th patch. Other
> than that, this series looks good to me. Also I did another trial run, and
> saw no regression. Good.

I've updated the series accordingly. Let me run a quick test and then I
post the update.