[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0806251017320.2578-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:23:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
cc: andi@...stfloor.org, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<antonio.lin@...ormicro.com>, <david.vrabel@....com>
Subject: Re: Scatter-gather list constraints
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > For example, suppose an I/O request starts out with two S-G elements
> > of 1536 bytes and 2048 bytes respectively, and the DMA requirement is
> > that all elements except the last must have length divisible by 1024.
> > Then the request could be broken up into three requests of 1024, 512,
> > and 2048 bytes.
>
> I can't say that it's easy to implement a clean mechanism to break up
> a request into multiple requests until I see a patch.
And I can't write a patch without learning a lot more about how the
block core works.
> What I said is that you think that this is about extending something
> in the block layer but it's about adding a new concept to the block
> layer.
Is it? What does the block layer do when it receives an I/O request
that don't satisfy the other constraints (max_sectors or
dma_alignment_mask, for example)?
> > Is it reasonable to have 120-KB bounce buffers?
>
> The block layer does. Why do you think that USB can't?
Why do you think I think that USB can't? I didn't ask whether it was
_possible_; I asked whether it was _reasonable_.
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