Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, James Bottomley wrote: > >> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 12:44 -0500, Alan Stern wrote: >>> James: >>> >>> There hasn't been any feedback on this patch: >>> >>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=122513368301598&w=2 >>> >>> It was modified in the way you requested. Does it need to be revised >>> any more? >> Probably not. I really dislike a check and retry on something which is >> theoretically a legal return, but I suppose I can put it in and see if >> anything breaks. > > It's too bad that the scsi_execute_req() interface loses all > information about how much data the device actually sent. If that > information were preserved then it wouldn't be necessary to rely on > this not-quite-satisfactory sort of test. > > Alan Stern > Just a comment: You are the third person this week that wanted residual return from scsi_execute/scsi_execute_req. Perhaps it's time as come ;) (This is a TODO for me) 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
