On Tue, Jan 29 2008 at 22:13 +0200, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29 2008, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >>> Ok this is not in Linus tree is it? Hence I did not have that failure. >>> >>> Boaz >>> >>> >> actually James bidi tree has a fix for this in the scsi_data_buffer patch. >> >> what you sent is not enough there are other places. look at this patch I >> sent to the list. >> >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg21938.html > > Hard to compare, since its on different bases. Yes in this patchset I have taken your sg branch at the time, and rebased it ontop of scsi_data_buffer patch. Because I felt that it is more natural for this patch to come after the scsi total cleanup that is scsi_data_buffer. Then the extraction to sg_table is simple and trivial. What I meant to point out with this patch is that all the exact same places that are touched there should be fixed when moving to sg_table. Look at it. It is a revised version of your patch. > >> Could we take the 2 SG patches and submit them through the scsi >> bidi tree? It is much more natural to have them in one tree as one >> patchset then try coordinate with git-merge. Actually if you look at it, >> the biggest change is to SCSI. So I think it is more natural this way > > What 2 sg patches do you mean? > I mean the patches that where in sg branch of the linux-block tree, But I see that it is now to late, and that they are in Linus already James the most simple is to submit the scsi_data_buff patch that fixes all these places. If not do you want that I send in fixes? Boaz - 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
