Hello, James. James Bottomley wrote: > This looks good (although I'd like to test it first). Yeah, this will need quite a bit of testing. > Might it not be better to have an accessor setting resid_len? All > the other patches in the series insulate users from the actual > members of struct request by accessors, so this is a bit the odd man > out. I actually think it's better to expose resid_len in this case as the semantics of the field is - initialized to zero on issue, contains residual count on completion and whatever it contains inbetween is upto the low level driver. Request position or length are different as they must contain well defined values throughout request processing and both block layer and low level driver should agree on what they mean. Fancy words aside, it basically boils down to allowing llds to do either "rq->resid_len = blk_rq_bytes() - xferred" on completion or "rq->resid_len = blk_rq_bytes()" on issue and "rq->resid_len -= increments" while processing. It would be better to check that the value is sane on completion tho. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
