"Kenneth D. Merry" wrote:
Tony Chung wrote...
>
>
> >
> > 1 - Add a 'direction' field to the scsi command structure that can be
> >     filled with the following values:
> >       DIR_INPUT, DIR_OUTPUT, DIR_NONE and DIR_UNKNOWN=0
> >       Set this field to DIR_UNKNOWN=0 by default.
> >
>
> >From Digital Unix  /usr/include/io/cam.h:
>
> /* Defines for the CAM flags field in the CCB header. */
>
> #define CAM_DIR_RESV       0x00000000   /* Data direction (00: reserved) */
> #define CAM_DIR_IN         0x00000040   /* Data direction (01: DATA IN) */
> #define CAM_DIR_OUT        0x00000080   /* Data direction (10: DATA OUT) */
> #define CAM_DIR_NONE       0x000000C0   /* Data direction (11: no data) */
>
> While UDI scsi spec has:
> #define UDI_SCSI_DATA_IN   (1U<<0)
> #define UDI_SCSI_DATA_OUT (1U<<1)
>
> Basically, it can't be UNKNOWN because the Peripheral Driver must specify the
> buffer address and total transfer size. Any  inconsistencies should return error
>
> or let the host adaptor card simply return data overrun or data underrun.
>
>
> I found CAM_DIR_NONE is potential hazard because
> if some one specify CAM_DIR_NONE, another person
> may mistakenly check for:
>         If (flags & CAM_DIR_OUT) ...../* condition true and do something wrong
> */

In FreeBSD/CAM, we added a mask:

        CAM_DIR_RESV            = 0x00000000,/* Data direction (00:reserved)  */
        CAM_DIR_IN              = 0x00000040,/* Data direction (01:DATA IN)   */
        CAM_DIR_OUT             = 0x00000080,/* Data direction (10:DATA OUT)  */
        CAM_DIR_NONE            = 0x000000C0,/* Data direction (11:no data)   */
        CAM_DIR_MASK            = 0x000000C0,/* Data direction Mask           */

So to determine the data direction:

if ((flags & CAM_DIR_MASK) == CAM_DIR_OUT)
        ...

I think CAM_DIR_MASK is a workaround for the original design flaw.
Comparing to UDI, only two defines versus five defines in CAM.

And one "&" operation versus two operations (&,==) in CAM.
Obviously, UDI is better at least here :-).
-- 
=============================
Tony Chung
 

Reply via email to