Elias Oltmanns <eo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > I'm going to send a first draft of a patch series in reply to this > email. It is a stripped down version intended to get the general idea > across. Have you had got round to looking at these patches yet? > The first of these four patches will eventually need to be modified to > actually abort in flight commands and clear up the mess afterwards. > However, first and foremost I'd like to draw your attention to the use > of REQ_TYPE_LINUX_BLOCK requests as demonstrated in the other three > patches. The question is whether the underlying concept is right. > Although the question how to handle REQ_TYPE_LINUX_BLOCK requests in > the scsi subsystem has been raised on the linux-scsi ml, it has never > been answered really because this request type was deemed unsuitable > for the application in question. See, for instance, the thread > starting at [1]. My patch approach has been partly inspired by the > patch discussed there. Before I raise this issue yet again, I'd like > to know whether REQ_TYPE_LINUX_BLOCK is the right choice for my > application in your opinion or whether another mechanism might be more > suitable as James suggested a while ago (see [2]). > > Regards, > > Elias > > [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.scsi/30049 > [2] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.scsi/37951 Sorry, I got these two the wrong way round. [1] should be [2] and vice versa. Regards, Elias -- 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
