On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:00:21 +1000
ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:54 PM, ronnie sahlberg
> <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:20 PM, FUJITA Tomonori
> > <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 08:30:40 +1000
> >> ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> From 7717d0bdaaf1f37943f659390cf20179c6e3c9ef Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>> From: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 08:28:26 +1000
> >>> Subject: [PATCH] Add support for WRITEVERIFY10/12/16
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> usr/bs_rdwr.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> >>> usr/sbc.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
> >>> usr/scsi.c | 4 +++-
> >>> 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> (snip)
> >>
> >>> @@ -417,12 +423,6 @@ static int sbc_verify(int host_no, struct scsi_cmd *cmd)
> >>> goto sense;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> - bytchk = cmd->scb[1] & 0x02;
> >>> - if (!bytchk) {
> >>> - /* no data compare with the media */
> >>> - return SAM_STAT_GOOD;
> >>> - }
> >>> -
> >>
> >> What's this change for?
> >
> > There is no BYTCHK flag in WRITEVERIFY*
> > WRITEVERIFY* will always perform a compare to the data.
> > Thats why the check is removed from WRITEVERIFY.
>
>
> So the check is moved down into the bs_rdwr() backend instead. And
> there it is only triggered for VERIFY* commands
> but not for WRITEVERIFY* commands
But VERIFY_* in the previous code with BYTCHK disabled, the command
doesn't go to bs_rdwc.c. But now such commands goes to bs_rdwc.c
unnecessarily? Also looks like the BYTCHK code in bs_rdwc.c leads
memory leak.
--
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
