request->flags ambiguity
I might just be completely off base, but something struck me lately as odd, and i`d like to hear what you folks think about the issue.
I`m wondering about the ambiguity of the struct request->flags field.
Is it ok to have a possibility of a request with conflicting meanings attached to it? For example REQ_CMD | REQ_PM_SHUTDOWN | REQ_SPECIAL.
It may be, depending on the implementation, that they are not completely conflicting, but its hard to believe that there is zero ambiguity at all.
If i`m not mistaken this looks as creating opportunities for various subtle bugs.
Shouldn`t it make more sense to separate request-type-indicator flags into a separate unambiguous type field, which would take one of the following values:
- read/write request
- sense query
- power control
- special request
And not a currently possible combination of all of them, which seem to be the current situation.
Signature · 1 line
regards, Samium Gromoff
Quoted 10 lines · Samium Gromoff
I might just be completely off base, but something struck me lately as odd, and i`d like to hear what you folks think about the issue.
I`m wondering about the ambiguity of the struct
request->flagsfield.Is it ok to have a possibility of a request with conflicting meanings attached to it? For example
REQ_CMD|REQ_PM_SHUTDOWN|REQ_SPECIAL.
No of course not.
Quoted 7 lines
It may be, depending on the implementation, that they are not completely conflicting, but its hard to believe that there is zero ambiguity at all.
If i`m not mistaken this looks as creating opportunities for various subtle bugs.
Quoted 7 lines
Shouldn`t it make more sense to separate request-type-indicator flags into a separate unambiguous type field, which would take one of the following values: - read/write request - sense query
- power control - special requestAnd not a currently possible combination of all of them, which seem to be the current situation.
There has been talk of that before, search the archives.
Signature · 1 line
Jens Axboe
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:48:22 +0200
Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
-- snip --
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Is it ok to have a possibility of a request with conflicting meanings attached to it? For example
REQ_CMD|REQ_PM_SHUTDOWN|REQ_SPECIAL.No of course not.
-- snip --
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Shouldn`t it make more sense to separate request-type-indicator flags into a separate unambiguous type field, which would take one of the following values: - read/write request - sense query
- power control - special requestAnd not a currently possible combination of all of them, which seem to be the current situation.
There has been talk of that before, search the archives.
Umm, ive tried and failed, couldnt you share some vague pointers about the topic
or something?
I`m sorry, but my curiosity prevailed over hesitation to bother you :-)
Quoted 5 lines
Signature · 2 lines
-- Jens Axboe
--
regards, Samium Gromoff
Quoted 14 lines · Samium Gromoff
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:48:22 +0200
Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
-- snip --Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Is it ok to have a possibility of a request with conflicting meanings attached to it? For example
REQ_CMD|REQ_PM_SHUTDOWN|REQ_SPECIAL.No of course not.
-- snip --
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Shouldn`t it make more sense to separate request-type-indicator flags into a separate unambiguous type field, which would take one of the following values: - read/write request - sense query
- power control - special request
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
And not a currently possible combination of all of them, which seem to be the current situation.
There has been talk of that before, search the archives.
Umm, i
ve tried and failed, couldnt you share some vague pointers about the topic or something?
Some pointers here
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105482104321668&w=2
Signature · 1 line
Jens Axboe