Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2023 16:38:34 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
Cc:     Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] nvme: move ns id info to struct nvme_ns_head
Message-ID: <20231213153833.GC7301@lst.de>
References: <20231208105337.23409-1-dwagner@suse.de> <20231208105337.23409-2-dwagner@suse.de> <bf20cb2a-0985-467b-842b-6b5fd752f14b@grimberg.me> <7ldcd6imhzxhn3wsirhxxyhb75x5iay2p67p2i4qi2euyztc5i@nbjtvyixifqm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7ldcd6imhzxhn3wsirhxxyhb75x5iay2p67p2i4qi2euyztc5i@nbjtvyixifqm>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 03:54:25PM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > I think that the whole PI stuff needs to be taken with a bit more
> > consideration because if not all paths agree on the pi (as we have
> > hbas with fabrics) we can't just override or do a logical or on
> > the capabilities/attributes.
> 
> So should the PI variables stay in nvme_ns at this point? Or should I
> add some checks which avoid an override and warn in this case?

Didn't we merge the patch from max to require uniform PI setups
for all controllers that we're using in a multipath setup?  I'll
check the code after finishing a few more things if no one remembers
offhand.