On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:38:33 +0200
Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06 2007 at 20:25 +0200, Mike Christie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> >> [1]
> >> I propose a small change to scsi_tgt_lib.c that will make
> >> tgt completely neutral to the scsi_data_buf
On Tue, Nov 06 2007 at 20:25 +0200, Mike Christie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> [1]
>> I propose a small change to scsi_tgt_lib.c that will make
>> tgt completely neutral to the scsi_data_buffer patch. And will
>> make it all that more ready for bidi, too. TOMO is this OK?
>>
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
[1]
I propose a small change to scsi_tgt_lib.c that will make
tgt completely neutral to the scsi_data_buffer patch. And will
make it all that more ready for bidi, too. TOMO is this OK?
(Can you do without the GFP_KERNEL allocation flag? It could
make the code a bit more simpl
[1]
I propose a small change to scsi_tgt_lib.c that will make
tgt completely neutral to the scsi_data_buffer patch. And will
make it all that more ready for bidi, too. TOMO is this OK?
(Can you do without the GFP_KERNEL allocation flag? It could
make the code a bit more simple)
[2]
scsi_data_buf
4 matches
Mail list logo