From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benny Halevy Subject: Re: [RFC 3/6] bidi support: bidirectional request Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:15:01 +0200 Message-ID: <45B60A55.6080104@panasas.com> References: <45B3F64C.3030805@panasas.com> <1169478021.2769.5.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from gw-e.panasas.com ([65.194.124.178]:41298 "EHLO cassoulet.panasas.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964933AbXAWNQo (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:16:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1169478021.2769.5.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Boaz Harrosh , Jens Axboe , Christoph Hellwig , Mike Christie , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, open-iscsi@googlegroups.com, Daniel.E.Messinger@seagate.com, Liran Schour James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 01:25 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >> - Instantiate another request_io_part in request for bidi_read. >> - Define & Implement new API for accessing bidi parts. >> - API to Build bidi requests and map to sglists. >> - Define new end_that_request_block() function to end a complete request. > > Actually, this approach looks to be a bit too narrow. You seem to be > predicating on the idea that the bidirectional will transfer in and out > of the same area. For some of the frame in/frame out stuff, we probably > need the read and write areas for the bidirectional request to be > separated. Hmm, our proposal introduces two separate and independent i/o areas. One used for uni-directional transfers and for bidi data output, the other is used for bidi data input so we're in agreement. Benny