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


  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).