From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] SCSI Userspace Target: scsi-ml changes
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:45:28 -0600
Message-ID: <43E79948.2090004@cs.wisc.edu>
References: <1138157885.11692.32.camel@max>	 <1139164228.3017.14.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>	 <20060206113356T.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>	 <43E78D68.7010301@cs.wisc.edu>	 <1139248965.3022.11.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>	 <43E793F2.6070703@cs.wisc.edu> <1139250832.3022.26.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from sabe.cs.wisc.edu ([128.105.6.20]:17356 "EHLO sabe.cs.wisc.edu")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932151AbWBFSph (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 13:45:37 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1139250832.3022.26.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
Cc: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org

James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 12:22 -0600, Mike Christie wrote:
> 
>>I understand. To make this worse, for the target code since we are 
>>mapping data like SG_IO block layer code (we used their functions) we 
>>need process context for the unmap. To handle this we added a work 
>>struct on the scsi_cmnd and the work struct is pretty large and only 
>>used for targets. We can move all the target specific to a:
>>
>>scsi_tgt_cmnd {
>>	work;
>>	host;
>>};
>>
>>And store out scsi_tgt_cmnd in the scsi_cmnd->host_scribble or somewhere 
>>on the SCp. Is that too hacky?
> 
> 
> Could you take a look at the execute_in_user_context() function I'm
> hatching to add to the workqueue here:
> 
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=113916262109180&w=2
> 
> And see if that would suit your purpose without any additions to
> scsi_command (probably the data carried would have to be the actual
> command).
> 

Yeah it looks that will work for the work struct and scsi_host pointer 
we were adding. Thanks. Will convert our code.