On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:41:28 -0400 (EDT) Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > > > One thing I don't like is the now blk_end_request(req, -EIO, bytes=0) > > inside scsi_end_request(). What's the point of calling that with 0 bytes? > > Maybe fix that too. > > While testing the patch, I learned what the point is. :-) > > Actually it's very simple; you just have to remember that not all > requests are BLOCK_FS type. Other types of request can indeed have a > transfer length of 0, and we want to end those requests normally. > > So this version of the patch works better than the earlier one. In > principle there doesn't seem to be any reason not to call > blk_end_request with bytes = 0, but I left the test in there. > > Alan, you might want to test this version and see how well it works for > you. > > Alan Stern > Hi, is the fix going to be merged? I haven't seen it in rc4-git series. Thanks, Antonio -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? Web site: http://www.studenti.unina.it/~ospite Public key: http://www.studenti.unina.it/~ospite/aopubkey.asc
Attachment:
pgp7gaHTLphxg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
