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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans