James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 00:14 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: >> Well, accept the patch if it works. > > It's not about work/not work: it's about correctness. > >> And in case that you don't like it, make sure that the _parameter_ is >> moved to where it belongs: to the low level transport layer. > > It's not a low level property; it's a property of the generic queue, > namely the maximum request size. It exists for devices independent of > SCSI (i.e. you'll want it for IDE and weirder transport attachment CDs > as well). Too much smoke and mirrors. That maximum request size comes from the transport ** and in many cases is a kludge between maximum, optimal and defensive. The block paradigm is wrong for a pass through because it requests transports to guess a "maximum", trying to head off errors that the block layer isn't particularly well equipped to handle at run time. On the other hand a pass through gets layered error reporting. So if a host (and/or its LLD driver) doesn't like the size (or shape) of data to be sent/received with a command, then it can say so (and I don't mean EIO or ENOMEM). That leaves the ball in the court of the pass through user. Perhaps in this case sysfs could be useful. The problem may be transient. ** as always the OS could have run out of resources (e.g. ram) but again that is most likely transient. Doug Gilbert - To unsubscribe from this list: 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
