From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: fix residual byte count handling Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:46:06 +0900 Message-ID: <47C6D73E.4030302@gmail.com> References: <1203839683.17463.9.camel@homer.simson.net> <1204019283.8731.11.camel@homer.simson.net> <1204033003.11828.22.camel@homer.simson.net> <20080226150845.2196bc1a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1204079075.26640.8.camel@homer.simson.net> <1204092010.9934.31.camel@homer.simson.net> <1204096025.1623.9.camel@homer.simson.net> <47C6661E.9010504@gmail.com> <1204186800.7362.7.camel@homer.simson.net> <47C675C6.8000904@gmail.com> <20080228153542.GZ6704@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080228153542.GZ6704@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: Mike Galbraith , Andrew Morton , LKML , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Jens Axboe wrote: >> This problem was reported and diagnosed by Mike Galbraith. > > Tejun, this patch isn't much cleaner at all. It really shows the pain of > these two seperate, yet related, variables. Not much cleaner compared to what? I think padding stuff is bound to be somewhat complex. It's a nasty thing in nature. I think ->extra_len is better than ->raw_data_len because ->extra_len only needs to be updated where the dirty jobs are done and extra buffer areas are added. Any better suggestions? Thanks. -- tejun