[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080306135627P.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:56:27 +0900
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To: htejun@...il.com
Cc: fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, tomof@....org, efault@....de,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, 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
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:44:01 +0900
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Most of users of request structure care about only the real data
> > length, don't care about padding and drain length. Why do they bother
> > to use a helper function to get the real data length?
>
> I think this is where the difference comes from. To me it seems
> internal usage seems more wide-spread and more delicate and not too many
> care about the true size and when they do only in well defined places.
> Maybe it comes from the difference between your most and my most.
I don't think that they only in well defined places.
If you see scsi mid-layer (and LLDs), you can find several places that
use rq->data_len as the true data length.
Breaking rq->data_len == the true data length theoretically
wrong. Even if it affects only libata now, it will hurt us, I think.
--
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