Re: [Scst-devel] [PATCH 2.6.25.1] Add scsi_execute_async_fifo() | |
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] | |
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:Boaz Harrosh wrote:Thanks for pointing on it. But it still remained unclear for me what's the point in the scsi_execute_async() removal. Function scsi_req_map_sg() looks pretty simple and straightforward, so I don't see how the overall code can be simplified.Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:The problem with it is the use of sg list to *hack* in bio's. Which totally ignores/duplicates block layer mechanisms. There is pending a large patchsetChristoph Hellwig wrote:scsi_execute_async() is already a nice and simple helper function on top blk_execute_rq_nowait(). What's the point then to remove it? Do you consider that exposing scsi_execute_async() internals to its users is better?On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 05:53:22PM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:Regarding scsi_execute_async(): I didn't know that this API is on its way out. What will it be replaced by, and when ?blk_execute_rq/blk_execute_rq_nowait plus the block level helpers built ontop to build requests.that removes the use of scsi_execute_async from sg/sr and friends to use blk_map_* members and directly call blk_execute_*. The original patchset was written by Mike Christie but is now brought up to date by Tomo. It should be submitted soon I think. If you need good example of usage check out bsg.c it maps user-space data in all kind of combinations. If you have kernel space memory it is even simpler.Well No, scsi_req_map_sg() is a complete hack. If you have user memory or kernel memory you better go through blk_map_* which will take care of device masks, alignment and all, where here the ULD does that. So you have 2 places of waisted code both at ULD to build the SG right, and here to translate SG to BIO. Where at block layer you have one function call.Try it out you see that not using scsi_execute_async() is much more simple at ULD then using it.If you do mmap then Tomo has code for block layer to support that.
Seems, I'm starting understanding you. You mean that all ULDs (User Level Devices, i.e. sg, st, etc.) deal with user supplied buffers, i.e. pointers to virtually continuous memory, which at the moment it has to convert to SG vector, which then will be translated to BIOs for the corresponding LDD by scsi_execute_async() (and then back to SG vector on the queuecommand() time). So, it will be simpler to supply that buffer pointer directly to block functions. Correct?
But the problem is that in SCST in each data transfer 2 LDDs participate: one target and one backstorage (initiator). And the target LDD deals with SG vectors only. So, SCST never deals with buffers, it always deals with SG vectors and pass them between target LDDs and backstorage as necessary.
Thus, looks like for SCST in the pass-through mode there is no alternative to scsi_execute_async().
Thanks, Vlad -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Site Home] [Kernel Newbies] [Share Photos] [IDE] [Security] [Git] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Rubini] [Photo] [Yosemite] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Linux ATA RAID] [Samba] [Video 4 Linux] [Device Mapper] [Linux Resources]
![]() |