> +struct __scsi_request {
> + void *data;
> + void (*done)(void *data, char *sense, int result, int resid);
> + char sense[SCSI_SENSE_BUFFERSIZE];
> +};
I don't think this is a good structure name. Just something like
iocontext or similar?
> +int scsi_execute_async_iov_req(struct scsi_device *sdev,
> + const unsigned char *cmd, int data_direction,
> + struct kvec *vec, int vec_count, int timeout,
> + int retries, void *privdata,
> + void (*done)(void *, char *, int, int))
If you passed an request_queue_t instead of th scsi_device this function
would not have any knowledge about scsi internals and could be moved up
to the block layer. not sure that's actually a good idea.
If we stick to putting it into the scsi layer the done callback could
normalize the sense data, though.
> + struct request *req;
> + struct __scsi_request *sreq;
> + int write = (data_direction == DMA_TO_DEVICE);
What about just passing in a write parameter directly?
> +
> + sreq = kzalloc(sizeof(*sreq), GFP_ATOMIC);
> + if (!sreq) {
> + return DRIVER_ERROR << 24;
> + }
> +
> + req = blk_get_request(sdev->request_queue, write, GFP_ATOMIC);
can you add a gfp_mask argument instead of hardcoding GFP_ATOMIC?
-
: 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
