On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Kai Makisara wrote: > On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > It's just that after seeing how sg.c is claiming to dirty even readonly > > memory, I'm excessively averse to saying we've dirtied memory we haven't. > > My hangup, I'll get over it! > > > Please don't. I have a very conservative attitude to these things: my > priority is to make sure that the data is correct even if it is not the > fastest code. I will happily let others point out when I am too > conservative. I'm not certain which way you're directing me now: a conservative attitude suggests we play safe at the end of st_read, by saying we might somehow have dirtied memory there, perhaps if someone changes sequence. As I presently, incompletely have it, to maintain more similarity with sg.c, I've actually moved away from "dirtied" to "rw" READ or WRITE, and it will look odd to put WRITE at the end of st_read. I'm giving up for the evening, and probably won't have a chance to do more until Sunday - the PageCompound issue still under discussion too. Hugh - : 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
