[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47CDDC31.4070806@gmail.com>
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