From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/17] Clear up bidi command confusion Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:58:36 +0100 Message-ID: <54C60FCC.4060601@sandisk.com> References: <54C2390A.3000700@sandisk.com> <20150123131249.GA8045@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-bn1bon0099.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([157.56.111.99]:22782 "EHLO na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754484AbbAZJ6o (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2015 04:58:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20150123131249.GA8045@infradead.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" On 01/23/15 14:12, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 01:05:30PM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> There is some confusion in the SCSI core and in SCSI LLDs around the >> meaning of sc_data_direction and whether or not this member can have the >> value DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL. Clear up this confusion. The patches in this >> series are: > > I wonder if we should change the code to set DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL for > bidi commands. That seems a lot more logical than the current > version. > > Also I don't think all the debug checks for bidi commands that you > change should stay at all - driver need to set the QUEUE_FLAG_BIDI to > ever see a bidi command. > > It would also nice to add a host template flag for bidi support instead > of having to poke into the block layer request_queue while we're at it. Hello Christoph, This makes sense to me. I will rework this patch series as you proposed. Bart.