On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:38:33 +0200 Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 06 2007 at 20:25 +0200, Mike Christie <michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Boaz Harrosh wrote: > >> [1] > >> I propose a small change to scsi_tgt_lib.c that will make > >> tgt completely neutral to the scsi_data_buffer patch. And will > >> make it all that more ready for bidi, too. TOMO is this OK? > >> > >> (Can you do without the GFP_KERNEL allocation flag? It could > >> make the code a bit more simple) > >> > > > > GFP_KERNEL is nice for the target layer because it can sleep in that > > path you changed and it and does not have the "cannot write out pages > > because it may come back to the same device issues" like an initiator does. > > > > If we ever changed to a softirq instead of the work queue then we would > > not need the flag since it would have to GFP_ATOMIC, but I am not sure > > if we have plans to do that anytime soon. > > Yes I understand that, hence the GFP_KERNEL was kept intact in my patch. > But I was thinking perhaps it was possible to sleep outside, if > the return value was BLKPREP_DEFER, the way the block layer sleeps, > just not in allocation stage. The block layer is designed to handle that case but target drivers are not. - 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
