On Sun, Feb 10 2008 at 16:43 +0200, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 02:38:46PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >> The OOPS is most likely (again) my fault - I was rushing out to push out >> the fix and memset() line didn't get converted. > > The new patch works fine for me. > >> I prepared the new patch, documented it and started looking into SCSI >> build breakage... and I no longer feel comfortable with the hack :( >> >> It seems that fixing IDE properly will be easier than auditing the whole >> SCSI for all the weird assumptions on rq->cmd[] size (James?) so I'm back >> to the code, in the meantime here's the updated patch: > > Yeah, this is quite nasty. I'll attach the patch below which just > rejects a command in scsi_setup_blk_pc_cmnd if it's too large for > the scsi_cmnd cmnd array. This is probably enough but I haven't > audited all of the scsi code yet. But as James said this is > too much of a memory vastage to put it into the tree. > > Long-term the Panasas folks have looked into killing the scsi_cmnd.cmnd > filed entirely and make the struct request.cmd field dynamically sized > which would solve your problem, but probably won't be ready for 2.6.25. > > <snip> As far as I'm concerned it is very ready, and I have sent a last version for inclusion into 2.6.25. - There is a very minor patch-ability problem between last patchset and scsi-misc I will resend the pachset as a reply to this mail. - Since I never got any comments from Jens or James, this code was never accepted into -mm. So it was not widely tested. Though I have thrown every test I can on these patches. But that is still, a very limited testing. If people have a bit of spare time, please review. For some of us it is very important Thanks Boaz - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
