Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:40:04 -0800 | From | Patrick Mansfield <> | Subject | Re: linux-2.4.18-modified-scsi-h.patch |
| |
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 09:11:47PM +1100, Douglas Gilbert wrote: > Andre Hedrick wrote: > > Greetings Doug et al. > > > > Please consider the addition of this simple void ptr to the scsi_request > > struct. The addition of this simple void pointer allows one to map any > > and all request execution caller the facility to search for a specific > > operation without having to run in circles. Hunting for these details > > over the global device list of all HBA's is silly and one of the key > > reasons why there error recovery path is so painful. > > > > > > Scsi_Request *req = sc_cmd->sc_request; > > blah_blah_t *trace = NULL; > > > > trace = (blah_blah_t *)req->trace_ptr; > > > > > > Therefore the specific transport invoking operations via the midlayer will > > have the ablity to track and trace any operation. > > Andre, > No need to convince me: I have already put a similar pointer > in that structure in lk 2.5 (for either sd, st, sr or sg to use). > In sg case's it saved some ugly looping in (what was formerly > called) the bottom half handler. Sounds like your motivation is > similar. > > Doug Gilbert
So we should name it the same in 2.4 as in 2.5: upper_private_data, not trace_ptr (thought it should really have been sr_upper_private_data, like all the other fields in scsi_request).
I don't see why we need the #define, or is that another patch?
-- Patrick Mansfield - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |