From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Douglas Gilbert Subject: Re: sg regression in 2.6.16-rc5 Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:43:45 -0500 Message-ID: <44087241.3090702@torque.net> References: <4404AA2A.5010703@torque.net> <20060301083824.GA9871@merlin.emma.line.org> <4405F6F1.9040106@torque.net> <44074CA1.3000007@torque.net> <20060302230814.GB16237@merlin.emma.line.org> Reply-To: dougg@torque.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([205.233.218.70]:38534 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932320AbWCCQo4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:44:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Matthias Andree , Kai Makisara , Mark Rustad , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Matthias Andree wrote: > >>Please make up your mind if you want regressions reported and removed >>before release or if you want 2.6.16 to be an experimental release. > > > The _one_ regression that was reported already has a fix. > > As far as I can tell, the rest of the thread has been _whining_. Well thanks for the characterization as a whiner. I may not follow the party line but I try not to resort to name calling. Do you want dissenters around or do you think that it is fine to impose block subsystem rules on non block drivers? Yes, I have been told the block subsystem is generic, if so why does it enforce concepts like max_sectors ? > Guys, what's so hard with just raising the limits on the common SG_IO > thing (the same way people had to raise the limits on the _old_ sg-only > thing), instead of whining about it? ... and I believe that is the correct solution and what, I believe, Mike Christie who is the author of "st/sg scatter gather list merge" change wants to do. But since the requirement has just come up, it is unlikely that code code be produced it time for lk 2.6.16 .