lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 08/10] block: cleanup rq->data_len usages
    Hello, Boaz.

    Boaz Harrosh wrote:
    >> /* The req and req->next_rq have not been completed */
    >> - BUG_ON(blk_end_bidi_request(req, 0, dlen, next_dlen));
    >> + BUG_ON(blk_end_bidi_request(req, 0, blk_rq_bytes(req),
    >> + blk_rq_bytes(req->next_rq)));
    >>
    >
    > Just blk_end_request_all() actually. If you let blk_end_request_all
    > also do bidi

    I wrote in the other reply but I don't want to make any other change
    than converting direct accesses to accessors in this patch, so that we
    can _know_ this patch is safe. Patches in this series are already all
    over the place. But, yeah, cleaning this up would be great. Care to
    send a patch?

    >> scsi_release_buffers(cmd);
    >>
    >
    > and then it can be in-lined into caller, where blk_pc_request(req)
    > just do blk_end_request_all regardless (and only the residual
    > setting is conditional)
    >
    > I'll send a patch to scsi_lib later once this settles a bit.

    Ah.. cool. :-)

    >> @@ -966,7 +965,7 @@ static int scsi_init_sgtable(struct request *req, struct scsi_data_buffer *sdb,
    >> BUG_ON(count > sdb->table.nents);
    >> sdb->table.nents = count;
    >> if (blk_pc_request(req))
    >> - sdb->length = req->data_len;
    >> + sdb->length = blk_rq_bytes(req);
    >> else
    >> sdb->length = blk_rq_sectors(req) << 9;
    >
    > Is this true. I thought they must be the same now. I was actually
    > anticipating this if() removed.

    Replied in the other reply.

    >> /* FIXME: should be include in osd_sense_info */
    >> if (in_resid)
    >> - *in_resid = or->in.req ? or->in.req->data_len : 0;
    >> + *in_resid = or->in.req ? blk_rq_bytes(or->in.req) : 0;
    >
    > + *in_resid = or->in.req ? or->in.req->resid_len : 0;
    >
    >>
    >> if (out_resid)
    >> - *out_resid = or->out.req ? or->out.req->data_len : 0;
    >> + *out_resid = or->out.req ? blk_rq_bytes(or->out.req) : 0;
    >
    > + *out_resid = or->out.req ? or->out.req->resid_len : 0;
    >
    >>
    >> return ret;
    >> }
    >
    > OK This segment is wrong. It should be moved to the residual count patch
    > (PATCH 3/10) the assignment into *in_resid/*out_resid should shourly triggered
    > a warning ;-)

    Ah... thanks a lot for spotting it. Will fix.

    Thanks.

    --
    tejun


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-03 03:41    [W:0.034 / U:30.224 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site