[PATCH v2 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly

[Johannes Thumshirn]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:15:25PM +0200, Steffen Maier wrote:
> I'm puzzled.
> 
> $ git bisect start fc_bsg master
> Bisecting: 8 revisions left to test after this (roughly 3 steps)
> [005d51510eee6102636d5dbb06310531c5d46151] scsi: fc: implement kref backed
> reference counting
> $ git bisect bad
> Bisecting: 3 revisions left to test after this (roughly 2 steps)
> [bef6da201de1bb81bb4d9511f9a155862efc251f] scsi: Unify interfaces of
> fc_bsg_jobdone and bsg_job_done
> $ git bisect bad
> Bisecting: 1 revision left to test after this (roughly 1 step)
> [3087864ce3d7282f59021245d8a5f83ef1caef18] scsi: don't use
> fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly
> $ git bisect bad
> Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 0 steps)
> [81aea44720d22d2e0c4a2613ae8b1c256ef6b0cb] scsi: Get rid of struct
> fc_bsg_buffer
> > $ git bisect good
> > 3087864ce3d7282f59021245d8a5f83ef1caef18 is the first bad commit
> > commit 3087864ce3d7282f59021245d8a5f83ef1caef18
> > Author: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn at suse.de>
> > Date:   Wed Oct 12 15:06:28 2016 +0200
> > 
> >     scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly
> > 
> >     Don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly, but use
> >     helper variables bsg_request and bsg_reply. This will be helpfull  when
> >     transitioning to bsg-lib.
> > 
> >     Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn at suse.de>
> > 
> > :040000 040000 140c4b6829d5cfaec4079716e0795f63f8bc3bd2 0d9fe225615679550be91fbd9f84c09ab1e280fc M	drivers
> 
> From there (on the reverse bisect path) I get the following Oops,
> except for the full patch set having another stack trace as in my previous
> mail (dying in zfcp code).
> 

[...]

> 
> > @@ -3937,6 +3944,7 @@ fc_bsg_request_handler(struct request_queue *q, struct Scsi_Host *shost,
> >  	struct request *req;
> >  	struct fc_bsg_job *job;
> >  	enum fc_dispatch_result ret;
> > +	struct fc_bsg_reply *bsg_reply;
> > 
> >  	if (!get_device(dev))
> >  		return;
> > @@ -3973,8 +3981,9 @@ fc_bsg_request_handler(struct request_queue *q, struct Scsi_Host *shost,
> >  		/* check if we have the msgcode value at least */
> >  		if (job->request_len < sizeof(uint32_t)) {
> >  			BUG_ON(job->reply_len < sizeof(uint32_t));
> > -			job->reply->reply_payload_rcv_len = 0;
> > -			job->reply->result = -ENOMSG;
> > +			bsg_reply = job->reply;
> > +			bsg_reply->reply_payload_rcv_len = 0;
> > +			bsg_reply->result = -ENOMSG;
> >  			job->reply_len = sizeof(uint32_t);
> >  			fc_bsg_jobdone(job);
> >  			spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock);
> > 

Ahm and what exactly can break here? It's just assigning variables. Now
I'm puzzled too.

I'll have to look into it tomorrow.

Byte,
        Johannes

-- 
Johannes Thumshirn                                          Storage
jthumshirn at suse.de                                +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850