Re: [PATCHv2] usb: gadget: storage: optional SCSI WRITE FUA bit

[MichaÅ Nazarewicz]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:44:58 +0200, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > @@ -93,6 +93,8 @@
> > >  *     removable               Default false, boolean for removable media
> > >  *     luns=N                  Default N = number of filenames, number of
> > >  *                                     LUNs to support
> > > + *     fua=b[,b...]            Default false, booleans for ignore FUA
> > > flag
> > > + *                                     in SCSI WRITE(6,10,12) commands
> >
> > I wonder if it makes sense to make it per-LUN.  I would imagine
> > that it's great to ignore FUA if the device has its own power supply
> > in which case after disconnect the data won't be lost.  This is a
> > per-device property not really per-LUN.  As such I'd make this option
> > global for the gadget.

> Make sense only for removable media with one partition.
> Otherwise. why we have sync option per partition f.e., not per device?

Ah, OK, I see why this is per LUN.  You want to be able not to ignore
FUA if the backing storage is a removable media, right?


> > > +       ssize_t         rc = count;

> > Not really needed here.

> See below

This still stands.  The ârcâ is not needed.

> > > +       if (sscanf(buf, "%d", &i) != 1)
> > > +               return -EINVAL;

> > Why not simple_strtol() directly?

> I did it in the same way like fsg_store_ro() does.
> I have no objections to back to previous solution.

OK.  I'd use simpre_strol() myself.  Maybe even patched fsg_store_ro().

> > > +
> > > +       if (curlun->fua)
> > > +               fsg_lun_fsync_sub(curlun);

> > Shouldn't that read something like:
> >
> > +       if (!curlun->fua && i)
> > +               fsg_lun_fsync_sub(curlun);
> >
> > ie. there is no sense in syncing if FUA was active (in which case all
> > writes were synced already, right?) or if the new value is false (since
> > then user does not won't syncing).

> The idea is to sync data before switching from async mode.

But there can be a case of switching from async to async when syncing
is not necessary.  That's why I proposed the &&.  With fua = 1 meaning
ignore the flag my proposal would be:

+       if (!i && curlun->fua)
+               fsg_lun_fsync_sub(curlun);

> Actually fua = 1 means ignorance of that flag.

ignore_fua would be better name then I think.  This also stands for
module parameter.

--
Best regards,                                        _     _
| Humble Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of  o' \,=./ `o
| Computer Science,  MichaÅ "mina86" Nazarewicz       (o o)
+----[mina86*mina86.com]---[mina86*jabber.org]----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/