[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A0EB1AD.6050806@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 16:29:33 +0400
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...glemail.com>,
Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@...hat.com>,
Eric Moore <Eric.Moore@....com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH block#for-2.6.31 2/3] block: set rq->resid_len to blk_rq_bytes()
on issue
Hello.
Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> Index: block/drivers/message/fusion/mptsas.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- block.orig/drivers/message/fusion/mptsas.c
>>> +++ block/drivers/message/fusion/mptsas.c
>>> @@ -1357,7 +1357,8 @@ static int mptsas_smp_handler(struct Scs
>>> smprep = (SmpPassthroughReply_t *)ioc->sas_mgmt.reply;
>>> memcpy(req->sense, smprep, sizeof(*smprep));
>>> req->sense_len = sizeof(*smprep);
>>> - rsp->resid_len = blk_rq_bytes(rsp) - smprep->ResponseDataLength;
>>> + req->resid_len = 0;
>>> + rsp->resid_len -= smprep->ResponseDataLength;
>>>
>> Is negative resid_len intended here? If so, shouldn't it be simply:
>>
>> rsp->resid_len = -smprep->ResponseDataLength;
>>
>
> From patch description.
>
> This patchset restores the original behavior by setting rq->resid_len
> to blk_rq_bytes(rq) on issue and restoring explicit clearing in
> affected drivers.
>
> So, rsp->resid_len equals the initial request length before the
> subtraction and after subtraction it becomes the residue count. The
> original code was
>
> req->data_len = 0;
> rsp->data_len -= smprep->ResponseDataLength;
>
Ah, I've confused up 'rsp' and 'req' as being one thing. Nevermind
then. :-<
>>> Index: block/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- block.orig/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
>>> +++ block/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
>>> @@ -1937,7 +1937,11 @@ int sas_smp_handler(struct Scsi_Host *sh
>>> if (ret > 0) {
>>> /* positive number is the untransferred residual */
>>> rsp->resid_len = ret;
>>> + req->resid_len = 0;
>>> ret = 0;
>>> + } else if (ret == 0) {
>>> + rsp->resid_len = 0;
>>> + req->resid_len = 0;
>>>
>
> Heh... there's a reason I mentioned the original commit. The original
> code was
>
> if (ret > 0) {
> /* positive number is the untransferred residual */
> rsp->data_len = ret;
> req->data_len = 0;
> ret = 0;
> } else if (ret == 0) {
> rsp->data_len = 0;
> req->data_len = 0;
> }
>
But still,
req->data_len = 0;
is common between both branches, so could be moved after the *if* statement.
>>> Index: block/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_host_smp.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- block.orig/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_host_smp.c
>>> +++ block/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_host_smp.c
>>> @@ -176,9 +176,6 @@ int sas_smp_host_handler(struct Scsi_Hos
>>> resp_data[1] = req_data[1];
>>> resp_data[2] = SMP_RESP_FUNC_UNK;
>>>
>>> - req->resid_len = blk_rq_bytes(req);
>>> - rsp->resid_len = blk_rq_bytes(rsp);
>>> -
>>>
>
> Cuz it's already set to blk_rq_bytes().
>
Mixed them up again... :-<
>>> switch (req_data[1]) {
>>> case SMP_REPORT_GENERAL:
>>> req->resid_len -= 8;
>>> Index: block/drivers/scsi/mpt2sas/mpt2sas_transport.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- block.orig/drivers/scsi/mpt2sas/mpt2sas_transport.c
>>> +++ block/drivers/scsi/mpt2sas/mpt2sas_transport.c
>>> @@ -1170,8 +1170,8 @@ transport_smp_handler(struct Scsi_Host *
>>>
>>> memcpy(req->sense, mpi_reply, sizeof(*mpi_reply));
>>> req->sense_len = sizeof(*mpi_reply);
>>> - rsp->resid_len = blk_rq_bytes(rsp) -
>>> - mpi_reply->ResponseDataLength;
>>> + req->resid_len = 0;
>>> + rsp->resid_len -= mpi_reply->ResponseDataLength;
>>>
>> Again, is negative resid_len intended?
>>
>
> Ditto.
>
... and again.
> Thanks.
>
WBR, Sergei
--
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