On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 15:43 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:11 +0900: > > On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:09:18 -0500 > > Pete Wyckoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I took another look at the compat approach, to see if it is feasible > > > to keep the compat handling somewhere else, without the use of #ifdef > > > CONFIG_COMPAT and size-comparison code inside bsg.c. I don't see how. > > > The use of iovec is within a write operation on a char device. It's > > > not amenable to a compat_sys_ or a .compat_ioctl approach. > > > > > > I'm partial to #1 because the use of architecture-independent fields > > > matches the rest of struct sg_io_v4. But if you don't want to have > > > another iovec type in the kernel, could we do #2 but just return > > > -EINVAL if the need for compat is detected? I.e. change > > > dout_iovec_count to dout_iovec_length and do the math? > > > > If you are ok with removing the write/read interface and just have > > ioctl, we could can handle comapt stuff like others do. But I think > > that you (OSD people) really want to keep the write/read > > interface. Sorry, I think that there is no workaround to support iovec > > in bsg. > > I don't care about read/write in particular. But we do need some > way to launch asynchronous SCSI commands, and currently read/write > are the only way to do that in bsg. The reason is to keep multiple > spindles busy at the same time.
Won't multi-threading the ioctl calls achieve the same effect? Or do you trip over BKL there? > How about these new ioctls instead of read/write: > > SG_IO_SUBMIT - start a new blk_execute_rq_nowait() > SG_IO_TEST - complete and return a previous req > SG_IO_WAIT - wait for a req to finish, interruptibly > > Then old write users will instead do ioctl SUBMIT. Read users will > do TEST for non-blocking fd, or WAIT for blocking. And SG_IO could > be implemented as SUBMIT + WAIT. > > Then we can do compat_ioctl and convert up iovecs out-of-line before > calling the normal functions. > > Let me know if you want a patch for this. Really, the thought of re-inventing yet another async I/O interface isn't very appealing. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
