On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:27:34 +0200
Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18 2007 at 9:57 +0200, FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:51:10 +0200
> > Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Oct 18 2007 at 1:40 +0200, FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:21:15 +0200
> >>> Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In preparation for bidi we abstract all IO members of scsi_cmnd,
> >>>> that will need to duplicate, into a substructure.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Group all IO members of scsi_cmnd into a scsi_data_buffer
> >>>> structure.
> >>>> - Adjust accessors to new members.
> >>>> - scsi_{alloc,free}_sgtable receive a scsi_data_buffer instead of
> >>>> scsi_cmnd. And work on it.
> >>>> - Adjust scsi_init_io() and scsi_release_buffers() for above
> >>>> change.
> >>>> - Fix other parts of scsi_lib/scsi.c to members migration. Use
> >>>> accessors where appropriate.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Old I/O members are kept for backward compatibility, since
> >>>> not all of scsi-ml/ul is converted yet. Once done they will
> >>>> be removed in a closing patch. (Other wise the patchset will
> >>>> not be bisectable)
> >>> (snip)
> >>>
> >>>> @@ -114,6 +112,22 @@ struct scsi_cmnd {
> >>>> int result; /* Status code from lower level driver
> >>>> */
> >>>>
> >>>> unsigned char tag; /* SCSI-II queued command tag */
> >>>> +
> >>>> + union {
> >>>> + struct scsi_data_buffer sdb;
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * FIXME: Here for compatibility with unconverted
> >>>> drivers.
> >>>> + * Must be kept in sync with exact type and order
> >>>> + * of struct scsi_data_buffer members.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + struct {
> >>>> + unsigned __deprecated request_bufflen;
> >>>> + int __deprecated resid;
> >>>> + unsigned short __deprecated use_sg;
> >>>> + unsigned short __deprecated
> >>>> place_holder_sg_alloc;
> >>>> + void __deprecated *request_buffer;
> >>>> + };
> >>>> + };
> >>>> };
> >>> If we add something like this, why couldn't we merge the
> >>> scsi_data_buffer patchset when I submitted last month?
> >>>
> >>> I thought that I wait you to fix all the old LLDs, then will send a
> >>> clean scsi_data_buffer patchset.
> >> We do have all the old LLDs fixed. After this patchset the entire tree
> >> is clean. I have just forgot to send the last [33/33] patch that removes
> >> this. I have just sent it now, sorry.
> >> (The change log above explains exactly why this is done here)
> >
> > As I said, I can't see why we need this compatibility hack in the
> > first place.
> >
> > We need to wait patches 1-26 to be merged. After that, we can merge
> > clean scsi_data_buffer patchset (without the compatibility hack).
> >
> No.
> It is here so we can separate the patches 27 to 32 and still be
> bisect-able and running at each patch. Other wise all 27-32 patches
> must be a single patch.
So why can they be a single patch?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
