From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: FUJITA Tomonori Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] block: add rq->resid_len Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 08:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20090512000249E.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> References: <4A0767E5.5050205@kernel.org> <20090511145024B.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1242051500.3338.9.camel@mulgrave.int.hansenpartnership.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.227]:33542 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752404AbZEKPDH (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2009 11:03:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1242051500.3338.9.camel@mulgrave.int.hansenpartnership.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com Cc: fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp, tj@kernel.org, bharrosh@panasas.com, axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, bzolnier@gmail.com, petkovbb@googlemail.com, sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com, mike.miller@hp.com, Eric.Moore@lsi.com, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, zaitcev@redhat.com, Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, paul.clements@steeleye.com, tim@cyberelk.net, jeremy@xensource.com, adrian@mcmen.demon.co.uk, oakad@yahoo.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, ballabio_dario@emc.com, davem@davemloft.net, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, Markus.Lidel@shadowconnect.com, dgilbert@interlog.com, djwong@us.ibm.com On Mon, 11 May 2009 09:18:20 -0500 James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 14:49 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > On Mon, 11 May 2009 08:48:53 +0900 > > Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > > Hello, Boaz. > > > > > > Boaz Harrosh wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Tejun, I've carefully reviewed these files which I know more > > > > about. The drivers/block files I've skipped, since I'm not familiar > > > > with this code. > > > > > > > > Except a small fallout, it looks very good. See some comments plus > > > > Ack/review below > > > > > > Thanks a lot for reviewing it closely. It's really nice to have > > > careful extra pair of eyes on the changes. :-) > > > > > > >> --- a/drivers/message/fusion/mptsas.c > > > >> +++ b/drivers/message/fusion/mptsas.c > > > >> @@ -1357,8 +1357,7 @@ static int mptsas_smp_handler(struct Scsi_Host *shost, struct sas_rphy *rphy, > > > >> smprep = (SmpPassthroughReply_t *)ioc->sas_mgmt.reply; > > > >> memcpy(req->sense, smprep, sizeof(*smprep)); > > > >> req->sense_len = sizeof(*smprep); > > > >> - req->data_len = 0; > > > >> - rsp->data_len -= smprep->ResponseDataLength; > > > >> + rsp->resid_len = rsp->data_len - smprep->ResponseDataLength; > > > >> } else { > > > >> printk(MYIOC_s_ERR_FMT "%s: smp passthru reply failed to be returned\n", > > > >> ioc->name, __func__); > > > > > > > > I think original code was assuming full residual count on the else side > > > > (not MPT_IOCTL_STATUS_RF_VALID). So maybe add: > > > > > > > > + rsp->resid_len = rsp->data_len; > > > > > > Does resid_len make any sense w/ failed requests? I think we would be > > > better off with declaring residual count to be undefined on request > > > failure. Is there any place which depends on it? > > > > IIRC, I wrote the code. I think that this doesn't matter but it's > > better not to change the behavior unless Eric ack on this change > > (maybe LSI has some management binary that assume this behavior though > > it's unlikely). > > Actually, yes it does, for many possible reasons. > > The first being if the device is too stupid to report an actual sector > location the next best way of determining where the error occurred is > from the residual. We don't make use of this in kernel (perhaps we > should?) but some of the user space programs for CD/DVD burning do. This function is for SAS management protocol. Are there many possible reasons?