On Sun, Feb 10 2008 at 16:43 +0200, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 02:38:46PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>> The OOPS is most likely (again) my fault - I was rushing out to push out
>> the fix and memset() line didn't get converted.
> The new patch works fine for me.
>> I prepared the new patch, documented it and started looking into SCSI
>> build breakage... and I no longer feel comfortable with the hack :(
>> It seems that fixing IDE properly will be easier than auditing the whole
>> SCSI for all the weird assumptions on rq->cmd[] size (James?) so I'm back
>> to the code, in the meantime here's the updated patch:
> Yeah, this is quite nasty.  I'll attach the patch below which just
> rejects a command in scsi_setup_blk_pc_cmnd if it's too large for
> the scsi_cmnd cmnd array.  This is probably enough but I haven't
> audited all of the scsi code yet.  But as James said this is
> too much of a memory vastage to put it into the tree.
> Long-term the Panasas folks have looked into killing the scsi_cmnd.cmnd
> filed entirely and make the struct request.cmd field dynamically sized
> which would solve your problem, but probably won't be ready for 2.6.25.

As far as I'm concerned it is very ready, and I have sent a last version
for inclusion into 2.6.25.
- There is a very minor patch-ability problem between last patchset and 
  scsi-misc I will resend the pachset as a reply to this mail.
- Since I never got any comments from Jens or James, this code was never
  accepted into -mm. So it was not widely tested. Though I have thrown
  every test I can on these patches. But that is still, a very limited 

If people have a bit of spare time, please review. For some of us it is
very important

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to