Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:31:28 +0100
From:   Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
        Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] nvme: move ns id info to struct nvme_ns_head
Message-ID: <jt7wqbbuk7wh2dxjkkbdxp7afwy5y5yaudz4jg4ucnxbwz3nni@rg7hzchx6qix>
References: <20231208105337.23409-1-dwagner@suse.de>
 <20231208105337.23409-2-dwagner@suse.de>
 <bf20cb2a-0985-467b-842b-6b5fd752f14b@grimberg.me>
 <7ldcd6imhzxhn3wsirhxxyhb75x5iay2p67p2i4qi2euyztc5i@nbjtvyixifqm>
 <20231213153833.GC7301@lst.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231213153833.GC7301@lst.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 04:38:34PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.

The newest discussion on this topic I found was this:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nvme/ec66d848-5246-529a-7050-afca3d1d981f@nvidia.com/