Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261864AbTEHQrQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2003 12:47:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261866AbTEHQrP (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2003 12:47:15 -0400 Received: from mion.elka.pw.edu.pl ([194.29.160.35]:39657 "EHLO mion.elka.pw.edu.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261864AbTEHQrO (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2003 12:47:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 18:59:25 +0200 (MET DST) From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: Jens Axboe cc: Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5 ide 48-bit usage In-Reply-To: <20030508163441.GG20941@suse.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1686 Lines: 43 On Thu, 8 May 2003, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Thu, May 08 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 8 May 2003, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > > > Maybe a define or two would help here. When you see drive->addressing > > > and hwif->addressing, you assume that they are used identically. That > > > !hwif->addressing means 48-bit is ok, while !drive->addressing means > > > it's not does not help at all. > > > > Why not just change the names? The current setup clearly is confusing, and > > adding defines doesn't much help. Rename the structure member so that the > > name says what it is, aka "address_mode", and when renaming it you'd go > > through the source anyway and change "!addressing" to something more > > readable like "address_mode == IDE_LBA48" or whatever. > > Might not be a bad idea, drive->address_mode is a heck of a lot more to > the point. I'll do a swipe of this tomorrow, if no one beats me to it. Good idea. > > (Anyway, I'll just drop all the 48-bit patches for now, since you've > > totally confused me about which ones are right and what the bugs are ;) :-) > I think we can all agree on the last one (attached again, it's short) is > ok. The 'only use 48-bit when needed' can wait until Bart gets the > taskfile infrastructure in place, until then I'll just have to eat the > overhead :) Okay for me. btw. Jens, do you have any benchmarks of using 1MiB requests and/or removing 48-bit overhead? -- Bartlomiej - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/