From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] bidi support: bidirectional request Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:07:34 +0200 Message-ID: <20070430130734.GN21015@kernel.dk> References: <46225E18.7070404@panasas.com> <462261E8.5090005@panasas.com> <200704281948.l3SJm9jS001428@mbox.iij4u.or.jp> <4634BE6B.3000808@panasas.com> <1177872588.3688.79.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <20070430111157.GI21015@kernel.dk> <4635E9B5.1020708@rtr.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4635E9B5.1020708@rtr.ca> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Lord Cc: James Bottomley , Boaz Harrosh , FUJITA Tomonori , akpm@osdl.org, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu, hch@infradead.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, bhalevy@panasas.com List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 30 2007, Mark Lord wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > > > >So basically just add a struct request pointer, so you can do rq = > >rq->next_rq or something for the next data phase. I bet this would be a > >LOT less invasive as well, and we can get by with a few helpers to > >support it. > > Hey, I want a way to issue those (linked requests) from userspace (SG_IO), > too. > Specifically for use with the new SMART Command Transport (SCT) feature set > on modern SATA drives. As well as for a disk recovery utility I'm working > on. > > Sounds generally useful, that. Yep, one of the reasons why I like (my :-) proposal as well, we could potentially find other uses for linking commands like that. > -- Jens Axboe