From owner-cvs-all  Thu Jan 29 02:11:21 1998
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA10040
          for cvs-all-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 02:11:21 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA10019;
          Thu, 29 Jan 1998 02:11:07 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from bde@godzilla.zeta.org.au)
Received: (from bde@localhost)
	by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA22501;
	Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:09:39 +1100
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:09:39 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199801291009.VAA22501@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, mike@smith.net.au
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/isa wfd.c
Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-sys@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe cvs-all"

>>>>>> You could simply reject such transfers.
>> >> >
>> >> >And then what happens to them?  I spent some time trying to understand 
>> >> 
>> >> Nothing good.  
>> >
>> >Then why would rejecting the transfers be useful?
>> 
>> It wouldn't.
>
>Dare I ask, then, why you suggested I should?

Because I didn't read the sources before my first reply.

>> >It was not clear that this was legitimate; I infer from this that the 
>> >correct approach is to return a nonzero value in b_resid, which will 
>> >cause another call to the strategy routine.  Is that correct?  Will 
>> >this work on 2.2?  It's certainly a *much* tidier approach than what I 
>> >am currently doing.
>> 
>> Only for raw i/o.  bread() and bwrite() don't even look at b_resid.
>
>Then it strikes me that you're suggesting a non-solution.  Any other 
>ideas?

It's good enough for SCSI drivers.

Bruce