James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:26 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 07:37 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
False statement, for libata.
Could you amplify this statement, please ... I looked through the head
of libata-dev and it seems that these are still the only two bufflen
uses, which still do look obviously wrong ... I don't see where the
problem in libata with this is?
Christoph's false statement is: "Using the buffer and bufflen fields
means they do very broken things in error handling."
libata does not do "very broken things in error handling."
OK ... let me explain what we're doing a bit. One of the things that
has been going on for quite a while is that Intel (Ken Chen) has
analyses showing that allocation clearing and freeing of the scsi_cmnd
structure is a drag on the fast path. This is part of the drive to slim
it down (i.e. get rid of a lot of the fields that are only used in eh).
OK.
Since libata does EH differently than all other SCSI drivers, it
certainly makes sense to CC the appropriate maintainers.
Please CC the author (me) or linux-ide, at least, when you touch
libata.
The tradition is that for infrastructure changes like this, particularly
ones that are trivial, as this appears to be, you simply copy the scsi
list and don't have to sweep up the individual maintainers of each
driver.
This is apparently an EH-related patch, and libata uses SCSI EH very
differently from all other drivers. In this case, Christoph's "very
broken" justification is clearly inaccurate, and thus a CC is obviously
warranted.
Also, I remind people constantly of this, so I'm sure you and Christoph
have heard the request before.
Jeff, the one who forwards to linux-scsi when others forget
I appreciate that for changes you want to make to SCSI. However, this
particular patch touches seventeen separately maintained pieces of code
within the SCSI subsystem, only one of which is libata. I'm really
reluctant to change the policy in this regard ... it's a policy we
copied from lkml ... that for sweeping infrastructure changes we only
send it to the list and don't have to work out who all the maintainers
are.
If the submittor is under the impression that libata's error handling is
"very broken", I would appreciate a clarification. Otherwise, one must
assume that the submittor should have CC'd linux-ide and relevant
maintainers, because they do not understand the code they are patching.
What _precisely_ is broken, given that libata does all its own error
handling, and ignores scsi_unjam_host() ?
Jeff
-
: 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
