[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> The version from March 99 _is_ not usable for libscg; this is the important
> >> comclusion. The interface from March 99 would force me to send a command
> >> with a high DMA count to the target to check if it would work.
>
> >I don't see it this way. It's probably true that this version didn't
> >actually support raising the DMA buffer size, but it provided a
> >guarantee that commands with less than a certain amount of data would
> >execute without problems due to insufficient buffer memory. You haven't
> >answered the question about this in my last mail, so I still don't know
> >if you disagree with me and Douglas here.
>
> I told you before, that the sg drivers from 2.2.6 ..2.2.9 could return
> 0 for SG_GET_RESERVED_SIZE. As it turns out, that up to now nobody
> complained about the old code I just used the pessimistic assumption
> that lead to the current code.
