On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 18:36 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > >> 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. > It was you who wanted that to be SG_ALL. I wanted just an hard coded = ~0. Yes, I've changed my mind. I think the best value for SG_ALL is the max single table and we'll do a dynamic increase for drivers that really have considered all the chaining implications. That doesn't mean we don't make the others chain ready ... we do ... we just don't force it on them. > I don't want to repeat myself. If it's fine with you, I trust your > final judgment. You are welcome to submit a patch that fixes all the > good drivers that are regressed by your suggestion. Lowering the figure from current 255 to 128 isn't really going to cause any regressions. It will actually save a few unnecessary allocations for some drivers. 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
