Re: [PATCH-v2 02/15] target: Add protected fabric + unprotected device support
nab == Nicholas A Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org writes: nab The following incremental patch saves the current sess_prot_type nab into se_node_acl, and will always reset sess_prot_type if a nab previous saved value exists. So the PI setting for the fabric's nab session with backend devices not supporting PI is persistent across nab session restart. nab I also noticed the internal DIF emulation was not honoring se_cmd- nab prot_checks for the WRPROTECT/RDPROTECT == 0x3 case, so nab sbc_dif_v1_verify() has been updated to follow which checks have nab been calculated based on WRPROTECT/RDPROTECT in nab sbc_set_prot_op_checks(). nab Finally in sbc_check_prot(), if PROTECT is non-zero for a backend nab device with DIF disabled, and sess_prot_type is not set go ahead nab and return INVALID_CDB_FIELD. Looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Martin K. Petersen martin.peter...@oracle.com -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-scsi in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH-v2 02/15] target: Add protected fabric + unprotected device support
On 4/10/2015 9:59 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 17:45 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
nab == Nicholas A Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org writes:
How do you handle RDPROTECT/WRPROTECT values of 3 if the PI is not
persistent?
nab AFAICT, this would result in cmd-prot_op = TARGET_PROT_*_PASS and
cmd- prot_checks = 0 for RDPROTECT/WRPROTECT == 0x3 in
nab sbc_set_prot_op_checks() code.
nab Do DOUT_STRIP + DIN_INSERT need to be called if a protection buffer
nab is present when RDPROTECT/WRPROTECT == 0x3 if fabric_prot was
nab cleared..? Or should the command be rejected when a protection
nab buffer is present + RDPROTECT/WRPROTECT is non-zero if fabric_prot
nab was cleared..?
Depends how compliant you want to be.
You can synthesize PI with RDPROTECT/WRPROTECT=1 as long as the
initiator doesn't rely on app tag escapes (we don't). Most non-HDD/SSD
targets work this way.
nod
I would suggest that you return invalid field in CDB for
RDPROTECT/WRPROTECT=3 unless the PI can be made persistent, however.
Ok, after thinking about this some more, here's what I've come up with..
The following incremental patch saves the current sess_prot_type into
se_node_acl, and will always reset sess_prot_type if a previous saved
value exists. So the PI setting for the fabric's session with backend
devices not supporting PI is persistent across session restart.
I also noticed the internal DIF emulation was not honoring
se_cmd-prot_checks for the WRPROTECT/RDPROTECT == 0x3 case, so
sbc_dif_v1_verify() has been updated to follow which checks have been
calculated based on WRPROTECT/RDPROTECT in sbc_set_prot_op_checks().
Finally in sbc_check_prot(), if PROTECT is non-zero for a backend device
with DIF disabled, and sess_prot_type is not set go ahead and return
INVALID_CDB_FIELD.
WDYT..?
--nab
diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c b/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
index 315ff64..a75512f 100644
--- a/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
+++ b/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
@@ -697,9 +697,13 @@ sbc_check_prot(struct se_device *dev, struct se_cmd *cmd,
unsigned char *cdb,
pi_prot_type = cmd-se_sess-sess_prot_type;
break;
}
+ if (!protect)
+ return TCM_NO_SENSE;
/* Fallthrough */
default:
- return TCM_NO_SENSE;
+ pr_err(Unable to determine pi_prot_type for CDB: 0x%02x
+ PROTECT: 0x%02x\n, cdb[0], protect);
+ return TCM_INVALID_CDB_FIELD;
}
if (sbc_set_prot_op_checks(protect, fabric_prot, pi_prot_type,
is_write, cmd))
@@ -1221,6 +1227,9 @@ sbc_dif_v1_verify(struct se_cmd *cmd, struct
se_dif_v1_tuple *sdt,
int block_size = dev-dev_attrib.block_size;
__be16 csum;
+ if (!(cmd-prot_checks TARGET_DIF_CHECK_GUARD))
+ goto check_ref;
+
csum = cpu_to_be16(crc_t10dif(p, block_size));
if (sdt-guard_tag != csum) {
@@ -1230,6 +1239,10 @@ sbc_dif_v1_verify(struct se_cmd *cmd, struct
se_dif_v1_tuple *sdt,
return TCM_LOGICAL_BLOCK_GUARD_CHECK_FAILED;
}
+check_ref:
+ if (!(cmd-prot_checks TARGET_DIF_CHECK_REFTAG))
+ return 0;
+
if (cmd-prot_type == TARGET_DIF_TYPE1_PROT
be32_to_cpu(sdt-ref_tag) != (sector 0x)) {
pr_err(DIFv1 Type 1 reference failed on sector: %llu tag:
0x%08x
diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
b/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
index f884198..3ff38b2 100644
--- a/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
+++ b/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
@@ -329,11 +329,17 @@ void __transport_register_session(
se_sess-fabric_sess_ptr = fabric_sess_ptr;
/*
* Determine if fabric allows for T10-PI feature bits to be exposed
-* to initiators for device backends with !dev-dev_attrib.pi_prot_type
+* to initiators for device backends with !dev-dev_attrib.pi_prot_type.
+*
+* If so, then always save prot_type on a per se_node_acl node basis
+* and re-instate the previous sess_prot_type to avoid disabling PI
+* from below any previously initiator side registered LUNs.
*/
- if (tfo-tpg_check_prot_fabric_only)
- se_sess-sess_prot_type =
tfo-tpg_check_prot_fabric_only(se_tpg);
-
+ if (se_nacl-saved_prot_type)
+ se_sess-sess_prot_type = se_nacl-saved_prot_type;
+ else if (tfo-tpg_check_prot_fabric_only)
+ se_sess-sess_prot_type = se_nacl-saved_prot_type =
+ tfo-tpg_check_prot_fabric_only(se_tpg);
/*
* Used by struct se_node_acl's under ConfigFS to locate active
se_session-t
*
diff --git a/include/target/target_core_base.h
b/include/target/target_core_base.h
index 383110d..51dcf2b 100644
--- a/include/target/target_core_base.h
+++
Re: [PATCH-v2 02/15] target: Add protected fabric + unprotected device support
On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 19:27 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote: nab == Nicholas A Bellinger n...@daterainc.com writes: nab This specifically is to allow LIO to perform WRITE_STRIP + nab READ_INSERT operations when functioning with non T10-PI enabled nab devices, seperate from any available hw offloads the fabric nab supports. How do you handle RDPROTECT/WRPROTECT values of 3 if the PI is not persistent? AFAICT, this would result in cmd-prot_op = TARGET_PROT_*_PASS and cmd-prot_checks = 0 for RDPROTECT/WRPROTECT == 0x3 in sbc_set_prot_op_checks() code. Do DOUT_STRIP + DIN_INSERT need to be called if a protection buffer is present when RDPROTECT/WRPROTECT == 0x3 if fabric_prot was cleared..? Or should the command be rejected when a protection buffer is present + RDPROTECT/WRPROTECT is non-zero if fabric_prot was cleared..? Also wrt to PI persistence across session restart, one way it can work is to store the last se_sess-sess_prot_type in se_node_acl, and reinstate the previous setting across session restart. This would allow new sessions to pickup the latest fabric_prot_type endpoint attribute value, but make existing ones with PI enabled keep their previous sess_prot_type settings. WDYT..? --nab -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-scsi in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH-v2 02/15] target: Add protected fabric + unprotected device support
nab == Nicholas A Bellinger n...@daterainc.com writes: nab This specifically is to allow LIO to perform WRITE_STRIP + nab READ_INSERT operations when functioning with non T10-PI enabled nab devices, seperate from any available hw offloads the fabric nab supports. How do you handle RDPROTECT/WRPROTECT values of 3 if the PI is not persistent? -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-scsi in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH-v2 02/15] target: Add protected fabric + unprotected device support
On 4/1/2015 8:49 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 10:51 +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 3/30/2015 6:28 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
From: Nicholas Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org
This patch adds a new target_core_fabric_ops callback for allowing fabric
drivers to expose a TPG attribute for signaling when a T10-PI protected
fabric wants to function with an un-protected device without T10-PI.
This specifically is to allow LIO to perform WRITE_STRIP + READ_INSERT
operations when functioning with non T10-PI enabled devices, seperate
from any available hw offloads the fabric supports.
This is done using a new se_sess-sess_prot_type that is set at fabric
session creation time based upon the TPG attribute. It currently cannot
be changed for individual sessions after initial creation.
Also, update existing target_core_sbc.c code to honor sess_prot_type when
setting up cmd-prot_op + cmd-prot_type assignments.
Cc: Martin Petersen martin.peter...@oracle.com
Cc: Sagi Grimberg sa...@mellanox.com
Cc: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
Cc: Doug Gilbert dgilb...@interlog.com
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org
---
drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c | 44
+-
drivers/target/target_core_transport.c | 8 +++
include/target/target_core_base.h | 1 +
include/target/target_core_fabric.h| 8 +++
4 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c b/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
index 95a7a74..5b3564a 100644
--- a/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
+++ b/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
@@ -581,12 +581,13 @@ sbc_compare_and_write(struct se_cmd *cmd)
}
static int
-sbc_set_prot_op_checks(u8 protect, enum target_prot_type prot_type,
+sbc_set_prot_op_checks(u8 protect, bool fabric_prot, enum target_prot_type
prot_type,
bool is_write, struct se_cmd *cmd)
{
if (is_write) {
- cmd-prot_op = protect ? TARGET_PROT_DOUT_PASS :
-TARGET_PROT_DOUT_INSERT;
+ cmd-prot_op = fabric_prot ? TARGET_PROT_DOUT_STRIP :
+ protect ? TARGET_PROT_DOUT_PASS :
+ TARGET_PROT_DOUT_INSERT;
In this case, if the protect=1 and fabric_prot=1 we will strip won't we?
I think that the protect condition should come first.
Mmm, not sure I follow..
sbc_check_prot() is only ever passing fabric_prot=1 when se_cmd prot
SGLs are present and se_dev does not accept PI, regardless of protect.
It's a little confusing that fabric_prot is set if the backend device
does not support PI.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-scsi in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH-v2 02/15] target: Add protected fabric + unprotected device support
On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 12:04 +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 4/1/2015 8:49 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 10:51 +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 3/30/2015 6:28 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
From: Nicholas Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org
This patch adds a new target_core_fabric_ops callback for allowing fabric
drivers to expose a TPG attribute for signaling when a T10-PI protected
fabric wants to function with an un-protected device without T10-PI.
This specifically is to allow LIO to perform WRITE_STRIP + READ_INSERT
operations when functioning with non T10-PI enabled devices, seperate
from any available hw offloads the fabric supports.
This is done using a new se_sess-sess_prot_type that is set at fabric
session creation time based upon the TPG attribute. It currently cannot
be changed for individual sessions after initial creation.
Also, update existing target_core_sbc.c code to honor sess_prot_type when
setting up cmd-prot_op + cmd-prot_type assignments.
Cc: Martin Petersen martin.peter...@oracle.com
Cc: Sagi Grimberg sa...@mellanox.com
Cc: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
Cc: Doug Gilbert dgilb...@interlog.com
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org
---
drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c | 44
+-
drivers/target/target_core_transport.c | 8 +++
include/target/target_core_base.h | 1 +
include/target/target_core_fabric.h| 8 +++
4 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
b/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
index 95a7a74..5b3564a 100644
--- a/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
+++ b/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
@@ -581,12 +581,13 @@ sbc_compare_and_write(struct se_cmd *cmd)
}
static int
-sbc_set_prot_op_checks(u8 protect, enum target_prot_type prot_type,
+sbc_set_prot_op_checks(u8 protect, bool fabric_prot, enum
target_prot_type prot_type,
bool is_write, struct se_cmd *cmd)
{
if (is_write) {
- cmd-prot_op = protect ? TARGET_PROT_DOUT_PASS :
- TARGET_PROT_DOUT_INSERT;
+ cmd-prot_op = fabric_prot ? TARGET_PROT_DOUT_STRIP :
+protect ? TARGET_PROT_DOUT_PASS :
+TARGET_PROT_DOUT_INSERT;
In this case, if the protect=1 and fabric_prot=1 we will strip won't we?
I think that the protect condition should come first.
Mmm, not sure I follow..
sbc_check_prot() is only ever passing fabric_prot=1 when se_cmd prot
SGLs are present and se_dev does not accept PI, regardless of protect.
It's a little confusing that fabric_prot is set if the backend device
does not support PI.
Well, it's supposed to signal that fabric supports PI, but the backend
device does not.
Seems like a reasonable name to me.. Any ideas for a better one..? ;)
--nab
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-scsi in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH-v2 02/15] target: Add protected fabric + unprotected device support
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 10:51 +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 3/30/2015 6:28 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
From: Nicholas Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org
This patch adds a new target_core_fabric_ops callback for allowing fabric
drivers to expose a TPG attribute for signaling when a T10-PI protected
fabric wants to function with an un-protected device without T10-PI.
This specifically is to allow LIO to perform WRITE_STRIP + READ_INSERT
operations when functioning with non T10-PI enabled devices, seperate
from any available hw offloads the fabric supports.
This is done using a new se_sess-sess_prot_type that is set at fabric
session creation time based upon the TPG attribute. It currently cannot
be changed for individual sessions after initial creation.
Also, update existing target_core_sbc.c code to honor sess_prot_type when
setting up cmd-prot_op + cmd-prot_type assignments.
Cc: Martin Petersen martin.peter...@oracle.com
Cc: Sagi Grimberg sa...@mellanox.com
Cc: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
Cc: Doug Gilbert dgilb...@interlog.com
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org
---
drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c | 44
+-
drivers/target/target_core_transport.c | 8 +++
include/target/target_core_base.h | 1 +
include/target/target_core_fabric.h| 8 +++
4 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
b/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
index 95a7a74..5b3564a 100644
--- a/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
+++ b/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
@@ -581,12 +581,13 @@ sbc_compare_and_write(struct se_cmd *cmd)
}
static int
-sbc_set_prot_op_checks(u8 protect, enum target_prot_type prot_type,
+sbc_set_prot_op_checks(u8 protect, bool fabric_prot, enum target_prot_type
prot_type,
bool is_write, struct se_cmd *cmd)
{
if (is_write) {
- cmd-prot_op = protect ? TARGET_PROT_DOUT_PASS :
-TARGET_PROT_DOUT_INSERT;
+ cmd-prot_op = fabric_prot ? TARGET_PROT_DOUT_STRIP :
+ protect ? TARGET_PROT_DOUT_PASS :
+ TARGET_PROT_DOUT_INSERT;
In this case, if the protect=1 and fabric_prot=1 we will strip won't we?
I think that the protect condition should come first.
Mmm, not sure I follow..
sbc_check_prot() is only ever passing fabric_prot=1 when se_cmd prot
SGLs are present and se_dev does not accept PI, regardless of protect.
For the protect=1 and fabric_prot=1 case, prot_op is set to
TARGET_PROT_DOUT_STRIP requesting the WRITE_STRIP operation by either HW
fabric offload or target DIX software emulation because the backend
device cannot accept PI.
switch (protect) {
case 0x0:
case 0x3:
@@ -610,8 +611,9 @@ sbc_set_prot_op_checks(u8 protect, enum
target_prot_type prot_type,
return -EINVAL;
}
} else {
- cmd-prot_op = protect ? TARGET_PROT_DIN_PASS :
-TARGET_PROT_DIN_STRIP;
+ cmd-prot_op = fabric_prot ? TARGET_PROT_DIN_INSERT :
+ protect ? TARGET_PROT_DIN_PASS :
+ TARGET_PROT_DIN_STRIP;
Same here.
switch (protect) {
case 0x0:
case 0x1:
@@ -644,11 +646,15 @@ sbc_check_prot(struct se_device *dev, struct se_cmd
*cmd, unsigned char *cdb,
u32 sectors, bool is_write)
{
u8 protect = cdb[1] 5;
+ int sp_ops = cmd-se_sess-sup_prot_ops;
+ int pi_prot_type = dev-dev_attrib.pi_prot_type;
+ bool fabric_prot = false;
if (!cmd-t_prot_sg || !cmd-t_prot_nents) {
- if (protect !dev-dev_attrib.pi_prot_type) {
- pr_err(CDB contains protect bit, but device does not
- advertise PROTECT=1 feature bit\n);
+ if (protect
+ !dev-dev_attrib.pi_prot_type
!cmd-se_sess-sess_prot_type) {
+ pr_err(CDB contains protect bit, but device + fabric
does
+ not advertise PROTECT=1 feature bit\n);
Can you place unlikely on these conditions?
Done.
return TCM_INVALID_CDB_FIELD;
}
if (cmd-prot_pto)
@@ -669,15 +675,28 @@ sbc_check_prot(struct se_device *dev, struct se_cmd
*cmd, unsigned char *cdb,
cmd-reftag_seed = cmd-t_task_lba;
break;
case TARGET_DIF_TYPE0_PROT:
+ /*
+* See if the fabric supports T10-PI, and the session has been
+* configured to allow export PROTECT=1 feature bit with backend
+* devices that don't support T10-PI.
+*/
+ fabric_prot = is_write ?
+ (sp_ops
Re: [PATCH-v2 02/15] target: Add protected fabric + unprotected device support
On 3/30/2015 6:28 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
From: Nicholas Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org
This patch adds a new target_core_fabric_ops callback for allowing fabric
drivers to expose a TPG attribute for signaling when a T10-PI protected
fabric wants to function with an un-protected device without T10-PI.
This specifically is to allow LIO to perform WRITE_STRIP + READ_INSERT
operations when functioning with non T10-PI enabled devices, seperate
from any available hw offloads the fabric supports.
This is done using a new se_sess-sess_prot_type that is set at fabric
session creation time based upon the TPG attribute. It currently cannot
be changed for individual sessions after initial creation.
Also, update existing target_core_sbc.c code to honor sess_prot_type when
setting up cmd-prot_op + cmd-prot_type assignments.
Cc: Martin Petersen martin.peter...@oracle.com
Cc: Sagi Grimberg sa...@mellanox.com
Cc: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
Cc: Doug Gilbert dgilb...@interlog.com
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org
---
drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c | 44 +-
drivers/target/target_core_transport.c | 8 +++
include/target/target_core_base.h | 1 +
include/target/target_core_fabric.h| 8 +++
4 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c b/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
index 95a7a74..5b3564a 100644
--- a/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
+++ b/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
@@ -581,12 +581,13 @@ sbc_compare_and_write(struct se_cmd *cmd)
}
static int
-sbc_set_prot_op_checks(u8 protect, enum target_prot_type prot_type,
+sbc_set_prot_op_checks(u8 protect, bool fabric_prot, enum target_prot_type
prot_type,
bool is_write, struct se_cmd *cmd)
{
if (is_write) {
- cmd-prot_op = protect ? TARGET_PROT_DOUT_PASS :
-TARGET_PROT_DOUT_INSERT;
+ cmd-prot_op = fabric_prot ? TARGET_PROT_DOUT_STRIP :
+ protect ? TARGET_PROT_DOUT_PASS :
+ TARGET_PROT_DOUT_INSERT;
In this case, if the protect=1 and fabric_prot=1 we will strip won't we?
I think that the protect condition should come first.
switch (protect) {
case 0x0:
case 0x3:
@@ -610,8 +611,9 @@ sbc_set_prot_op_checks(u8 protect, enum target_prot_type
prot_type,
return -EINVAL;
}
} else {
- cmd-prot_op = protect ? TARGET_PROT_DIN_PASS :
-TARGET_PROT_DIN_STRIP;
+ cmd-prot_op = fabric_prot ? TARGET_PROT_DIN_INSERT :
+ protect ? TARGET_PROT_DIN_PASS :
+ TARGET_PROT_DIN_STRIP;
Same here.
switch (protect) {
case 0x0:
case 0x1:
@@ -644,11 +646,15 @@ sbc_check_prot(struct se_device *dev, struct se_cmd *cmd,
unsigned char *cdb,
u32 sectors, bool is_write)
{
u8 protect = cdb[1] 5;
+ int sp_ops = cmd-se_sess-sup_prot_ops;
+ int pi_prot_type = dev-dev_attrib.pi_prot_type;
+ bool fabric_prot = false;
if (!cmd-t_prot_sg || !cmd-t_prot_nents) {
- if (protect !dev-dev_attrib.pi_prot_type) {
- pr_err(CDB contains protect bit, but device does not
- advertise PROTECT=1 feature bit\n);
+ if (protect
+ !dev-dev_attrib.pi_prot_type
!cmd-se_sess-sess_prot_type) {
+ pr_err(CDB contains protect bit, but device + fabric
does
+ not advertise PROTECT=1 feature bit\n);
Can you place unlikely on these conditions?
return TCM_INVALID_CDB_FIELD;
}
if (cmd-prot_pto)
@@ -669,15 +675,28 @@ sbc_check_prot(struct se_device *dev, struct se_cmd *cmd,
unsigned char *cdb,
cmd-reftag_seed = cmd-t_task_lba;
break;
case TARGET_DIF_TYPE0_PROT:
+ /*
+* See if the fabric supports T10-PI, and the session has been
+* configured to allow export PROTECT=1 feature bit with backend
+* devices that don't support T10-PI.
+*/
+ fabric_prot = is_write ?
+ (sp_ops (TARGET_PROT_DOUT_PASS |
TARGET_PROT_DOUT_STRIP)) :
Shouldn't this be converted to bool using !!()?
+ (sp_ops (TARGET_PROT_DIN_PASS |
TARGET_PROT_DIN_INSERT));
+
+ if (fabric_prot cmd-se_sess-sess_prot_type) {
+ pi_prot_type = cmd-se_sess-sess_prot_type;
+ break;
+ }
+ /* Fallthrough */
default:
return TCM_NO_SENSE;
}
-
