On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:49:49 +0300 Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 13 2008 at 19:50 +0300, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 13 2008 at 19:17 +0300, FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:13:18 +0300 > >> Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> That's a ugly hack for me. > >> > >> Why do we have two separate systems to represent the command length? > >> If the command length is smaller than 16 bytes, we use cmd_len. If the > >> length is larger than 16 bytes, we use varlen_cdb_len? > >> > >> For me, as Jens proposed, having only cmd_len is the right way. > >> > >> And 'cdb' name is not appropriate for the block layer, I think. > >> > >> I agreed that changing the block layer and the scsi midlayer gradually > >> is a safe option. Shortly, I'll send patches to clean up the hack on > >> the top of your patchset. > >> -- > > > > Sorry TOMO, I was sending the ver2 patchset and only saw your mail in > > the middle, so anyway you have the latest I have now. > > > > If it's ok with you I will squash your patches onto mine and add your > > sign-off-by. There is no use putting code in the tree that will be changed > > immediately after. > > > > Please note that I'm a bit afraid to put code that has both length as one > > if you are more confident then me, I will take your word for it. > > > > Thanks for helping out, as you can see I did it very safe, but with your > > help maybe it can finally go in. Thanks++ > > > > Boaz > > -- > Maybe you mean something like below. I changed cdb => cmd and I use one > cmd_len. I think that "cdb" was a good name. Note that we have BLK_MAX_CDB > right there next to it. But if you don't like it then I don't mind to > change the name, I think it was James idea. I don't. I've been talking mainly about how to represent the length of command. About 'cdb' name, I thought that there is a better name than BLK_MAX_CDB. But it's up to Jens. > But please note!!! > I think having one cmd_len is DANGEROUS. And it forces a full code audit > to be sure, has with my approach we are much more safe. There, I said it. Could you be more specific? So far, you have not explained how it can be dangerous. -- 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
