From: "Harrosh, Boaz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: scsi_cmnd accessors issues Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 06:32:23 -0400
> From: FUJITA Tomonori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tue 6/12/2007 7:51 PM > To: Harrosh, Boaz > Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL > PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: scsi_cmnd accessors issues > > > From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: scsi_cmnd accessors issues > > Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:02:20 +0300 > > > >> [2] > >> if I use __deprecated on request_buffer, request_bufflen, and use_sg with > >> scsi_sgtable implementation Than I get below list of files complaining: > > > >(snip) > > > >> and also these files from scsi-ml that need changing when implementation > >> changes: > >> drivers/scsi/scsi.c > >> drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c > >> drivers/scsi/scsi_debug.c > >> > >> (see: 0004-Convert-scsi-ml-to-use-of-new-scsi_sgtable.patch at scsi_cmnd.h) > >> > >> Which of the files do you have pending patches for? Which do you need that > >> I send > >> what I have for them? > > > >I don't think that SCSI-ml bidi will be got into 2.6.23. 2.6.23 will > >convert as many LLDs as possible. I don't think that we need such > >patches in scsi-misc or scsi-pending now. > > > >We need to agree on what the scsi bidi looks like first. When we add > >bidi support to scsi core, we can change scsi core (scsi.c, etc) > >together. > > OK! But what about the _set_ accessors what are we doing with these? are we > fixing the > code or are we adding new _set_ accessors? There are just two llds. I suspect that we can fix them. Or they can access to the data directly (without the accessors) if we can't. I don't think that introducing something like scsi_set_sg_count, which is meaningless to most of llds, is a good idea. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
