LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: Douglas Gilbert <dougg@torque.net>
Cc: Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
<James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Block layer: separate out queue-oriented ioctls
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:48:08 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0702192238110.4237-100000@netrider.rowland.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45DA23C7.6090800@torque.net>
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> Alan,
> The SG_GET_RESERVED_SIZE ioctl is also defined in
> the block layer, see block/scsi_ioctl.c .
Ah, I didn't know that. (Or more likely, I used to know and have since
forgotten.) Thanks for pointing it out.
> I suspect it is just a kludge to fool cdrecord that it
> is talking to a sg device. [One of many kludges in the
> block SG_IO ioctl implementation to that end.]
> So perhaps the block layer versions of SG_SET_RESERVED_SIZE
> and SG_GET_RESERVED_SIZE need to be similarly capped.
Yes. In fact one of them already is, but the other should be too.
> Actually I think that I would default SG_GET_RESERVED_SIZE to
> request_queue->max_sectors * 512 in the block layer
> implementation (as there is no "reserve buffer" associated
> with a block device).
Okay.
Come to think of it, the reserved_size value used when a new sg device is
created should also be capped at max_sectors * 512. Agreed? I can't see
any reason for ever having a larger buffer -- it would be impossible to
make use of the extra space.
Alan Stern
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-02-20 3:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-02-16 19:37 Alan Stern
2007-02-17 6:28 ` Jens Axboe
2007-02-17 21:18 ` Joerg Schilling
2007-02-18 3:43 ` Douglas Gilbert
2007-02-18 12:37 ` Joerg Schilling
2007-02-18 16:44 ` Alan Stern
2007-02-18 18:27 ` Joerg Schilling
2007-02-19 16:06 ` Alan Stern
2007-02-19 16:08 ` Joerg Schilling
2007-02-19 17:06 ` Alan Stern
2007-02-19 22:25 ` Douglas Gilbert
2007-02-20 3:48 ` Alan Stern [this message]
2007-02-20 4:47 ` Douglas Gilbert
2007-02-20 15:55 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-26 9:19 ` Joerg Schilling
2007-04-26 15:04 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-26 15:08 ` James Bottomley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0702192238110.4237-100000@netrider.rowland.org \
--to=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=James.Bottomley@steeleye.com \
--cc=Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de \
--cc=dougg@torque.net \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--subject='Re: [PATCH] Block layer: separate out queue-oriented ioctls' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).