On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 03:05:58PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Matthew Dharm wrote: > > I think the correct approach is to modify those routines so that they > will never overrun the s-g buffer (like Boaz has done), and _document_ > this behavior. Then the callers can feel free to try and transfer as > much as they want, knowing that an overrun can't occur. There won't > be any need for a WARN_ON or anything else.
Six of one and a half-dozen of the other. All we're arguing over is the
definition of "correct behavior" here. You want to change the API so that
overrun is acceptable and handled; I prefer calling it a Bad Thing(tm).
We both agree that the code shouldn't run off the end of the s-g list.
Since you've already committed to updating the patch, then we can do it
your way. Just make sure it's very very clear in the comments.
Matt
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
E: You run this ship with Windows?! YOU IDIOT!
L: Give me a break, it came bundled with the computer!
-- ESR and Lan Solaris
User Friendly, 12/8/1998
pgpRWES13MJJo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
