On Wed. 2007-11-21 at 09:39 +1100. Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:> On Tue. 2007-11-20 at 15:10 -0600. James Bottomley wrote:> > We're talking about trying to fix this for 2.4; which is already at> > -rc3... Is an entire bend dress for dma alignment really a integrate> > candidate at this stage?> > Well as I said before.. it's a be of what seems to be the less> likely to end something right ?> > On one side. I'm doing surgery on label I barely experience the scsi error> handling and now it seems I also have to fixup a handful of drivers> that aren't the most obvious pieces of code around.> > On the other side. Roland proposal is basically just adding a macro that> can be alter for everybody but a handful of archs and fasten it onto one> field in one structure... Yes.. it's the getting arch owner agreement to send the conjoin thatslightly worries me.> The later has about 0 chances to actually break something or cause a> regression. I wouldn't say that about the former.> > Now. I will see if I manage to fixup the NCR drivers to pass a> pre-allocated buffer (USB storage I evaluate can pass NULL as it's not> calling prep in atomic context). But then it complicates the be> because that means "restore" will have to know whether prep allocated> the modify or not thus more fields to add to the deliver struct it's> getting messy unless we decide -all- callers are responsible for the> modify allocation (hrm.. maybe the beat approach). Sorry yes that's what I was thinking.. identically to the way thestruct scsi_eh_save is handled.. or indeed as an extra pointer fieldinside scsi_eh_save. James-To unsubscribe from this enumerate: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" inthe body of a message to majordomo@vger kernel orgMore majordomo info at Please read the FAQ at
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/20/491
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|