FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:42:48 +0200
> Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>>> No. I do not want a loop to calculate the size here. This is ugly.
>>>> I have this information, and I just lost it do to BAD API.
>>> IMO, being ugly is better than confusing people.
>> Come on man. Ugly was an understatement. Can't you see?
>> Make a loop for information we have and decided to drop on the floor.
>
> Honestly, I can't see. Whatever you call the patch, the current API is
> worse than it for me.
>
>
>>> Do you think that the current API is good, which make developers
>>> always wrongly use it and feel that they have to ask how to use and
>>> add comments about necessary tricks to use it?
>>>
>> No I think (and said) that the API is crap. But not that bad that I want to
>> take the effort and change it.
>>
>>>> Since we do not want to change all users of blk_end_request. (We should,
>>>> but we are too lazy. I'm). Then please just let blk_end_bidi_request()
>>>> be. Confused users will be corrected.
>>> No. blk_end_bidi_request interface and the name is confusing. So
>>> forcing everyone to use blk_end_bidi_request doesn't help.
>>>
>> We should rename blk_end_bidi_request => blk_end_request() and
>> change all users to add an extra 0, and the original blk_end_request()
>> should be dropped.
>
> That might be better than the current situation but why do we need
> bidi_bytes (number of bytes to complete for bidi) in blk_end_request?
>
> Having bidi_bytes is theoretically correct but we always must complete
> all the bytes with bidi. Do you say that someone might need it in the
> future?
I will try to explain. The situation was bad for a long time. Not at
all because of the amount of bytes to complete but because of the residual
count. Look at current code that wants to return residual. It needs to save
on the side what ever was there in req->data_len then set req->data_len
to residual and call blk_end_request with the saved count. Now the thing
became worse because we have two of these.
Yes sure I want to complete both sides and I don't mind calling
blk_end_io( req, error, ~0U, ~0U, ...) so lets make a compromise
in your patch, don't loop on the bio's just set bidi_bytes = ~0U;
that is:
int blk_end_request(struct request *rq, int error, unsigned int nr_bytes)
{
- return blk_end_io(rq, error, nr_bytes, 0, NULL);
+ unsigned int bidi_bytes = 0;
+
+ if (blk_bidi_rq(rq))
+ bidi_bytes = ~0U;
+
+ return blk_end_io(rq, error, nr_bytes, bidi_bytes, NULL);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(blk_end_request);
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
