On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 18:08 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > My patches *do not* attempt to fix the sg_chaining support. They only > make all the drivers that use SG_ALL to use SCSI_MAX_SG_SEGMENTS. > One by One, and not globally as your suggestion. Yes, I know ... but it does need fixing for the listed drivers. > This is for two reasons. > 1. So drivers can be individually fixed and in the patch that fixes them > they can go back to SG_ALL. No, it's so SG_ALL can mean use chaining ... I'm not sure that's desirable for the default value. Particularly for devices that key internal sglist arrays off SG_ALL > 2. Those drivers that have been using SG_ALL correctly and were converted > to support sg-chaining are not penalized because of bad/old drivers I don't see they're penalised this way either ... they just have to set a higher value in their host template. > 3. Some drivers in this patchset are converted to use a real internal > driver limit. That does not necessarily match SCSI_MAX_SG_SEGMENTS. > In the event that SCSI_MAX_SG_SEGMENTS wants to change. Yes, I looked at those they're all either safe or currently (eventually) do the right thing. > The bulk of the patchset is very much mechanical and is not dangerous > and was ACKed by the more important maintainers. (That is where the > changes are more then trivial). So I don't see why they cannot get > a proper review and be accepted. Instead of doing the safe but the > wrong thing, cross tree. What's wrong about this? 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
