[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BEC272E.10508@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 18:22:06 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
CC: jeff@...zik.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ben@...adent.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] libata: implement ->set_capacity()
Hello,
On 05/13/2010 06:06 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> I'm not sure this is such a good interface ... it sounds very error
> prone for what is effectively a binary lock/unlock.
Well, the original block interface was like that. It has been used as
binary switch tho. The requested capacity is always ~0ULL and return
value smaller than the current capacity is ignored. I'm all for
dropping the capacity parameter and the return value from
->set_capacity() so that it just unlocks native capacity and directly
sets the new capacity. Jens?
> Instead of just saying unlock the HPA and show me the new capacity
> (with a rescan), you have to echo the right number of sectors to the
> set_capacity variable. Isn't a hpa_unlock libata specific attribute
> better (you could even call BLKRRPART from the user context of the
> write)?
Hmmm... I lost you. What are you talking about?
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