On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:05:28 -0700 "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 23:59 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:10:46 +0300 > > "Alexander Nezhinsky" <alexandern@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Alexander, I think that you added bs_sg.c. Dropping sg and supporting > > > > only bsg is ok for you? Or you still use this feature? > > > > > > It is generally ok with me. > > > > > > I've used bs_sg mainly for some performance measurements. > > > As we had discussed once, it has a major drawback of not handling properly > > > cache_sync in some scenarios, because the pass-through mode is disabled. > > > As far as i understand, the new implementation suffers from the same problem, > > > so it is subject to the same limitations and requires the same precautions. > > > > I can't recall the discussion, but the new implementation passes > > though all the commands. So it can inform initiators of the cache mode > > properly and pass SYNC commands to the underlying devices properly. > > > > > > > The only other concern might be that if anybody uses bs_sg with real devices > > > then the bsg-based implementation may preclude using older kernels, > > > like 2.6.18 of RHEL5.x. > > > > Yeah, if there are someone who cares about sg support, supporting both > > bsg and sg is fine by me. > > Hmmm, perhaps it still makes sense to support both bsg and sg following > the previous patch then..? > > http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/stgt/2010-June/003766.html Ok if you are really care about sg. But Seems that the above patch can't be applied to the current head. Can you send the updated patch? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stgt" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
