[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0702192238110.4237-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:48:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Douglas Gilbert <dougg@...que.net>
cc: Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@...us.fraunhofer.de>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
<James.Bottomley@...eleye.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Block layer: separate out queue-oriented ioctls
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> Alan,
> The SG_GET_RESERVED_SIZE ioctl is also defined in
> the block layer, see block/scsi_ioctl.c .
Ah, I didn't know that. (Or more likely, I used to know and have since
forgotten.) Thanks for pointing it out.
> I suspect it is just a kludge to fool cdrecord that it
> is talking to a sg device. [One of many kludges in the
> block SG_IO ioctl implementation to that end.]
> So perhaps the block layer versions of SG_SET_RESERVED_SIZE
> and SG_GET_RESERVED_SIZE need to be similarly capped.
Yes. In fact one of them already is, but the other should be too.
> Actually I think that I would default SG_GET_RESERVED_SIZE to
> request_queue->max_sectors * 512 in the block layer
> implementation (as there is no "reserve buffer" associated
> with a block device).
Okay.
Come to think of it, the reserved_size value used when a new sg device is
created should also be capped at max_sectors * 512. Agreed? I can't see
any reason for ever having a larger buffer -- it would be impossible to
make use of the extra space.
Alan Stern
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists