Quoting Michael Christie <michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > Quoting James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 13:10 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > shouldn't blk_rq_map_kern handle a 0 buffer and do nothing more than > > > blk_get_request? It's not exactly a criticial fastpath and that would > make > > life > > > easier for the callers. > > > > Yes ... and it should probably do bio bouncing as well, since there's > > nothing special we have to do on completion to clean it up. > > ok. I just made it like the existing blk_rq_map_user which made the caller > do > those things. > > > > > I also think we might need a blk_rq_kern_iovec call that would take a > > vector of user I/O's and map it to a multiple bio request. This would > > Does it need to be a multiple bio request? A single bio should be able to > handle > a request's segments and sectors limits. > > Will the user assure that the iovec will fit in a single request to handle a > case where the iovec is greater than the phys or hw segment limits though? > scsi_do/wait_req could do the checking and submit mutliple requests for sg I mean. - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
