On Tue, Jan 29 2008 at 22:13 +0200, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, Jan 29 2008, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>>> Ok this is not in Linus tree is it? Hence I did not have that failure.
>>>
>>> Boaz
>>>
>>>
>> actually James bidi tree has a fix for this in the scsi_data_buffer patch.
>>
>> what you sent is not enough there are other places. look at this patch I
>> sent to the list.
>>
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg21938.html
> 
> Hard to compare, since its on different bases.
Yes in this patchset I have taken your sg branch at the time, and
rebased it ontop of scsi_data_buffer patch. Because I felt that
it is more natural for this patch to come after the scsi total
cleanup that is scsi_data_buffer. Then the extraction to sg_table
is simple and trivial.

What I meant to point out with this patch is that all the exact same
places that are touched there should be fixed when moving to sg_table.

Look at it. It is a revised version of your patch.

quoted text
> 
>> Could we take the 2 SG patches and submit them through the scsi
>> bidi tree? It is much more natural to have them in one tree as one
>> patchset then try coordinate with git-merge. Actually if you look at it,
>> the biggest change is to SCSI. So I think it is more natural this way
> 
> What 2 sg patches do you mean?
> 

I mean the patches that where in sg branch of the linux-block tree, But
I see that it is now to late, and that they are in Linus already

James the most simple is to submit the scsi_data_buff patch that fixes
all these places. If not do you want that I send in fixes?

Boaz
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/