lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:33:05 +0900 From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> To: FUJITA Tomonori <tomof@....org> CC: efault@....de, jens.axboe@...cle.com, fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, jgarzik@...ox.com, bzolnier@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: fix residual byte count handling FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > Hmm, does SCSI mid-layer need to care about how many bytes the block > layer allocates? I don't think that extra_len is NOT good_bytes. > > I think that the block layer had better take care about it (fix > __end_that_request_first?). Yeah, probably calling completion functions w/o bytes count is the right thing to do but what I was talking about was what could break when the semantics of rq->data_len changed. If we keep rq->data_len() == sum(sg), we keep it business as usual for all the rest except for the device application layer if we don't we do the reverse and SCSI midlayer completion was a good example, I think. Things going the other way is fine with me but I at least want to hear a valid rationale. Till now all I got is "because that's the true size" which doesn't really make much sense to me. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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