From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NCvnT-0005o0-S7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:51:11 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NCvnP-0005lC-64
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:51:11 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60477 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NCvnP-0005kx-0C
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:51:07 -0500
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:16051)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>)
	id 1NCvnO-00006F-Lt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:51:06 -0500
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([38.113.113.100])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1NCvnN-0006xY-FJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:51:05 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [sneak preview] major scsi overhaul
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:51:03 +0000
References: <4AF4ACA5.2090701@redhat.com>
	<200911161853.34668.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<4B0BCAA1.3090400@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B0BCAA1.3090400@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200911241351.03650.paul@codesourcery.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>

On Tuesday 24 November 2009, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On 11/16/09 19:53, Paul Brook wrote:
> > Capping the amount of memory required for a transfer *is* implemented, in
> > both LSI and virtio-blk.  The exception being SCSI passthrough where the
> > kernel API makes it impossible.
> 
> Well.  Figured while doing more testing:  The allowed request size is
> limited by the kernel, so scsi-generic requests larger than (currently)
> 128k fail.
> 
> Now, how to handle *that*?  Is there some way to signal to the guest
> that the request was to big?

Same as real hardware.  Probably also want to populate the Block Limits VPD 
page appropriately

Paul