[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <op.vft7mxqm7p4s8u@pikus>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:24:23 +0200
From: Michał Nazarewicz <m.nazarewicz@...sung.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Shevchenko <ext-andriy.shevchenko@...ia.com>,
Denis Karpov <ext-denis.2.karpov@...ia.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...ia.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] usb: gadget: storage: optional SCSI WRITE FUA bit
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:44:58 +0200, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>>> @@ -93,6 +93,8 @@
>>> * removable Default false, boolean for removable media
>>> * luns=N Default N = number of filenames, number of
>>> * LUNs to support
>>> + * fua=b[,b...] Default false, booleans for ignore FUA
>>> flag
>>> + * in SCSI WRITE(6,10,12) commands
>>
>> I wonder if it makes sense to make it per-LUN. I would imagine
>> that it's great to ignore FUA if the device has its own power supply
>> in which case after disconnect the data won't be lost. This is a
>> per-device property not really per-LUN. As such I'd make this option
>> global for the gadget.
> Make sense only for removable media with one partition.
> Otherwise. why we have sync option per partition f.e., not per device?
Ah, OK, I see why this is per LUN. You want to be able not to ignore
FUA if the backing storage is a removable media, right?
>>> + ssize_t rc = count;
>> Not really needed here.
> See below
This still stands. The “rc” is not needed.
>>> + if (sscanf(buf, "%d", &i) != 1)
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>> Why not simple_strtol() directly?
> I did it in the same way like fsg_store_ro() does.
> I have no objections to back to previous solution.
OK. I'd use simpre_strol() myself. Maybe even patched fsg_store_ro().
>>> +
>>> + if (curlun->fua)
>>> + fsg_lun_fsync_sub(curlun);
>> Shouldn't that read something like:
>>
>> + if (!curlun->fua && i)
>> + fsg_lun_fsync_sub(curlun);
>>
>> ie. there is no sense in syncing if FUA was active (in which case all
>> writes were synced already, right?) or if the new value is false (since
>> then user does not won't syncing).
> The idea is to sync data before switching from async mode.
But there can be a case of switching from async to async when syncing
is not necessary. That's why I proposed the &&. With fua = 1 meaning
ignore the flag my proposal would be:
+ if (!i && curlun->fua)
+ fsg_lun_fsync_sub(curlun);
> Actually fua = 1 means ignorance of that flag.
ignore_fua would be better name then I think. This also stands for
module parameter.
--
Best regards, _ _
| Humble Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
| Computer Science, Michał "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
+----[mina86*mina86.com]---[mina86*jabber.org]----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
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