[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A0993BA.7090505@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 00:20:26 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
CC: axboe@...nel.dk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, bzolnier@...il.com,
petkovbb@...glemail.com, sshtylyov@...mvista.com,
mike.miller@...com, Eric.Moore@....com, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, zaitcev@...hat.com,
Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
grant.likely@...retlab.ca, paul.clements@...eleye.com,
tim@...erelk.net, jeremy@...source.com, adrian@...en.demon.co.uk,
oakad@...oo.com, dwmw2@...radead.org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
ballabio_dario@....com, davem@...emloft.net, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
Markus.Lidel@...dowconnect.com,
Doug Gilbert <dgilbert@...erlog.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] block: add rq->resid_len
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> The solution to this, I think, is that the bouncing layer should
> receive a residual count, and not bounce anything beyond what's
> transferred. (On reads, writes does nothing), and zero-out the
> rest. This of course means that all block drivers make sure residual
> is properly set, the way it should as explained in this
> thread. (SCSI does the right thing where it can, for example see
> scsi_execute())
Umm... shouldn't the request just be successfully finished with
positive residue count and with sense data if necessary? Block layer
request failure means, and has always meant, complete failure.
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