Christoph Hellwig wrote:
+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?
ok.
+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.
Did you want to move scsi_execute too?
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?
I thought most users would just have the DMA_* value so it would be
nicer for them to pass that down. It also then works like
scsi_execute_req/scsi_execute. I guess if we move one of those functions
to the block layer it would be better to pass in write/read for the
block layer versions.
+
+ 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?
yeah will do. I think I got lazy :)
-
: 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
