From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO sg-chaining Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:12:47 +0900 > From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO sg-chaining > Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:01:34 +0300 > > > FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > > From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO sg-chaining > > > Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:47:50 +0300 > > > > > >> As Jens said, there is nothing common to scsi_sgtable and > > >> sglists. Save the fact that it is a massive conflict at > > >> scsi-ml. They touch all the same places. > > >> > > >> Proposed is a simple way out. Two patchsets That produce the > > >> same output at the end. > > >> > > >> One: scsi_sgtable_than_sg-chaining > > >> Two: sg-chaining_than_scsi_sgtable > > > > > > Hmm, I thought that I've already posted a scsi_sgtable patch working > > > with sg-chaining together. > > > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=118519987632758&w=2 > > > > > > I quoted from my mail: > > > > > > --- > > > I think that the main issue of integrating sgtable and sglist is how > > > to put scatterlist to scsi_sgtable structure. > > > > > > If we allocate a scsi_sgtable structure and sglists separately, the > > > code is pretty simple. But probably it's not the best way from the > > > perspective of performance. > > > > > I was just answering your other mail when this came in so I'll answer > > here. > > This Approach is exactly the scsi_data_buffer approach we both > > had solutions for. At the time I was all for that approach because it > > is safer and could be kept compatible to old drivers. (Less work for > > me) But it was decided against it. So suggesting it again is plain > > going back. > > Well, the approach to shuffle the entire request setup around was > rejected. But was the approach to use two data buffers for bidi > completely rejected? I should have said that, was the approach to use separate buffer for sglists instead of putting the sglists and the parameters in one buffer completely rejected? - 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
