On Wednesday 20 May 2015 12:53:29 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 19 May 2015 23:22:39 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I can't decide if this is actually a good idea, or if we should rather drop > > the sg_pcopy_from_buffer() patch. Maybe someone else sees a better solution. > > Could make do_device_access() call sg_copy_buffer() directly. > > But yes, dropping the sg_pcopy_from/to_buffer changes is reasonable. > sg_copy_buffer() is bidirectional and that won't be changing, so > putting constified wrapeprs around it is kinda fake. Ok. The part I only saw now is that do_device_access() is the only user of sg_pcopy_from_buffer(), so if that passes a non-const argument, there is dropping the patch will be teh best solution. Arnd -- 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
