From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mike Christie <mikenc@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] improvement of fastfail operation
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:15:59 -0800
Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <406B512F.9090004@us.ibm.com>
References: <1080696593.2075.120.camel@mulgrave> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403302108550.7851-200000@dyn319701.beaverton.ibm.com> <20040331220416.GQ24370@suse.de> <1080771068.2071.48.camel@mulgrave> <20040331221241.GR24370@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.130]:16260 "EHLO
	e32.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262775AbUCaXQI
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:16:08 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20040331221241.GR24370@suse.de>
List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>, Masao Fukuchi <fukuchi.masao@jp.fujitsu.com>, SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31 2004, James Bottomley wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 17:04, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>>>So the new patch you sent with this mail is no good. Your previous one
>>>should be adopted ;-)
>>
>>And the:
>>
>>
>>		if (blk_pc_request(req))
>>			leftover = req->data_len - bytes;
>>
>>Since end_that_request chunk won't muck with that, is that OK?
> 
> 
> It's a bit messy right now really, but it's up to the drivers to modify
> that one. So for partial completions, it should be updated to be
> 
> 	leftover = req->data_len;
> 
> as well.
> 

Is that a typo? If drivers are to account for it, scsi should do
	leftover = req->data_len - bytes;
?