Bring the names of these struture members closer to the names used in the
SCSI and iSCSI standards.
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Check if the residual data does not owerwrite existing data blocks has now
been added for all testing data to improve the uniformity of test runs,
increase test readability and remove the duplicate testing data records.
Looking at test_write10_residuals.c, test_write12_residuals.c and
test_write16_residuals.c tests the similarity of the testing scenario
can be found. There are several EDTL and SPDTL combinations which are
the same for different length write command tests. They form the core
of testing scenario of these commands. There aren't so much differences
in the way of testing these combinations itself either. It is possible
to move the main parameters describing the testing scenario into a
separate structure and move the scenario itself into a separate function.
It will increase the readability and reduce the duplicate code of these tests.
According to the RFC 7143 11.4.5.1:
"Targets may set the residual count,and initiators may use
it when the response code is Command Completed at Target (even if the
status returned is not GOOD)."
Therefore valid retuned status may be not only GOOD. Also this check:
task->sense.ascq == SCSI_SENSE_ASCQ_INVALID_FIELD_IN_INFORMATION_UNIT
would make Underflow/Overflow response universal for FC/ISCSI.
RFC 3720 is not clear about whether a target should return SUCCESS
or CHECK CONDITION if SPDTL > EDTL. Hence accept both. See also
Fred Knight, Re: [Ips] Data Out residual overflow/underflow handling,
IETF mailing list archive, 21 September 2012
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ips/current/msg02756.html).
This patch reworks the changes introduced via commit
cfce944b35 and applies similar changes
to the other WRITE and WRITE VERIFY tests.
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@sandisk.com>
Avoid that Valgrind reports complaints similar to the following:
Syscall param writev(vector[...]) points to uninitialised byte(s)
at 0x5567087: writev (writev.c:49)
by 0x5265AE0: iscsi_iovector_readv_writev (socket.c:492)
by 0x52666B5: iscsi_write_to_socket (socket.c:710)
by 0x5266CCC: iscsi_service (socket.c:852)
by 0x526751F: event_loop (sync.c:67)
by 0x5269B41: iscsi_scsi_command_sync (sync.c:1153)
by 0x4050F6: send_scsi_command (iscsi-support.c:245)
by 0x408007: compareandwrite (iscsi-support.c:1512)
by 0x40B6AD: test_compareandwrite_dpofua (test_compareandwrite_dpofua.c:69)
by 0x503EC99: ??? (in /usr/lib/libcunit.so.1.0.1)
by 0x503EF27: ??? (in /usr/lib/libcunit.so.1.0.1)
by 0x503F2A5: CU_run_all_tests (in /usr/lib/libcunit.so.1.0.1)
Address 0xffeffff10 is on thread 1's stack
in frame #8, created by test_compareandwrite_dpofua (test_compareandwrite_dpofua.c:30)
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@sandisk.com>
RFC 3720 is not clear about whether a target should return SUCCESS
or CHECK CONDITION if SPDTL > EDTL. Hence accept both. See also
Fred Knight, Re: [Ips] Data Out residual overflow/underflow handling,
IETF mailing list archive, 21 September 2012
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ips/current/msg02756.html).
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Also test that IF the iSCSI layer provides 2 blocks of DATA-OUT but
the SCSI WRITE* command only covers one single block,
then only the first block will be modified but not the second block.
