On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 09:39 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 15:10 -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > > We're talking about trying to fix this for 2.4; which is already at > > -rc3 ... Is an entire arch change for dma alignment really a merge > > candidate at this stage? > > Well, as I said before... it's a matter of what seems to be the less > likely to break something right ? > > On one side, I'm doing surgery on code I barely know, the scsi error > handling, and now it seems I also have to fixup a handful of drivers > that aren't the most obvious pieces of code around. > > On the other side, Roland proposal is basically just adding a macro that > can be empty for everybody but a handful of archs, and stick it onto one > field in one structure... Yes ... it's the getting arch owner agreement to send the patch that slightly worries me. > The later has about 0 chances to actually break something or cause a > regression. I wouldn't say that about the former. > > Now, I will see if I manage to fixup the NCR drivers to pass a > pre-allocated buffer (USB storage I think can pass NULL as it's not > calling prep in atomic context). But then, it complicates the matter > because that means "restore" will have to know whether prep allocated > the buffer or not, thus more fields to add to the save struct, it's > getting messy, unless we decide -all- callers are responsible for the > buffer allocation (hrm... maybe the best approach). Sorry, yes, that's what I was thinking ... identically to the way the struct scsi_eh_save is handled ... or indeed as an extra pointer field inside scsi_eh_save. James - 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
