FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Wed, 07 May 2008 13:57:40 +0300
> Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Let me please explain a bit on my sense_buffer patchset and where I was going
>> with these:
>>
>> Currently every ULD/Initiator that pushes request to block devices puts a sense
>> buffer of SCSI_SENSE_BUFFERSIZE size onto request->sense pointer. scsi-midlayer
>> shadows that buffer, for what it thought as a DMAable buffer for drivers, and at
>> completion of request copies the shadow buffer back into ULD's buffer.
>>
>> I have observed three uses of sense_buffer handling in scsi drivers:
>
> I just had a quick look at only some of patches, but where do you
> allocate rq->sense for fs requests?
>
>
> Here are some comments:
>
> scsi_eh: Define API for driver private sense allocation
>
> +struct scsi_sense_elem {
> + union {
> + struct scsi_sense_elem *next;
> + u8 sense_data[SCSI_SENSE_BUFFERSIZE] ____cacheline_aligned;
> + };
> +} ____cacheline_aligned;
>
>
> I think that this is wrong since all the architecutures don't have
> such dma restriction. ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN?
>
> There is the same code in The libata patch at least. I guess there are
> more.
Tomo you are absolutely right there is no sense allocated for fs commands.
Which makes all this useless. I will go dig a big hole under a rock and
stay there for a year in shame. Please forgive me all for the noise.
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
