Actually, the SCSI layer allocated sg elements in multiples of various
powers of 2, so I (luckily) don't have to worry about the "chunkyness"
problem.
Frankly, I really don't care if we have to have some of the aforementioned
restrictions on sg lists -- I'd rather have working sg, and worry about
removing some of the more annoying restrictions later. Of course, I'm a
big fan of incremental development.... :)
Matt
On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 07:13:41PM -0400, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the driver submits a group of requests to of
> > sizes 16 bytes, 10 bytes, 14 bytes ... I'd expect
> > the driver to know the device would handle that!
> > And to be responsible for recovering in any case
> > where it couldn't.
> >
> > The USB transfer model is "chunky", and it'd
> > be error-prone (IMO) to try to present any
> > kind of non-chunky model to drivers.
>
> Absolutely. I'm just not sure that the SCSI layer will do that and more
> importantly if all USB storage devices will handle it gracefully.
>
> USB storage being the obvious first driver to take advantage of
> scatter/gather.
>
> JE
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
I'm just trying to think of a way to say "up yours" without getting fired.
-- Stef
User Friendly, 10/8/1998
PGP signature
