[stgt] [PATCH] [tgt]: Convert bs_sg to use BSG v4 interface

[FUJITA Tomonori]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:05:28 -0700
"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab at linux-iscsi.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 23:59 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:10:46 +0300
> > "Alexander Nezhinsky" <alexandern at voltaire.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Alexander, I think that you added bs_sg.c. Dropping sg and supporting
> > > > only bsg is ok for you? Or you still use this feature?
> > > 
> > > It is generally ok with me. 
> > > 
> > > I've used bs_sg mainly for some performance measurements.
> > > As we had discussed once, it has a major drawback of not handling properly
> > > cache_sync in some scenarios, because the pass-through mode is disabled. 
> > > As far as i understand, the new implementation suffers from the same problem,
> > > so it is subject to the same limitations and requires the same precautions.
> > 
> > I can't recall the discussion, but the new implementation passes
> > though all the commands. So it can inform initiators of the cache mode
> > properly and pass SYNC commands to the underlying devices properly.
> > 
> > 
> > > The only other concern might be that if anybody uses bs_sg with real devices
> > > then the bsg-based implementation may preclude using older kernels,
> > > like 2.6.18 of RHEL5.x. 
> > 
> > Yeah, if there are someone who cares about sg support, supporting both
> > bsg and sg is fine by me.
> 
> Hmmm, perhaps it still makes sense to support both bsg and sg following
> the previous patch then..?
> 
> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/stgt/2010-June/003766.html

Ok if you are really care about sg. But Seems that the above patch
can't be applied to the current head. Can you send the updated patch?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stgt" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html