Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264931AbTK3QmN (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:42:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264936AbTK3QmN (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:42:13 -0500 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:18097 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264931AbTK3QmL (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:42:11 -0500 Message-ID: <3FCA1DD3.70004@pobox.com> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:41:55 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030703 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jens Axboe CC: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , "Prakash K. Cheemplavam" , marcush@onlinehome.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, eric_mudama@Maxtor.com Subject: Re: Silicon Image 3112A SATA trouble References: <3FC36057.40108@gmx.de> <200311301547.32347.bzolnier@elka.pw.edu.pl> <3FCA1220.2040508@gmx.de> <200311301721.41812.bzolnier@elka.pw.edu.pl> <20031130162523.GV10679@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20031130162523.GV10679@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jens Axboe wrote: > On Sun, Nov 30 2003, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >>Hmm. actually I was under influence that we have generic ioctls in 2.6.x, >>but I can find only BLKSECTGET, BLKSECTSET was somehow lost. Jens? > > > Probably because it's very dangerous to expose, echo something too big > and watch your data disappear. IMO, agreed. Max KB per request really should be set by the driver, as it's a hardware-specific thing that (as we see :)) is often errata-dependent. Tangent: My non-pessimistic fix will involve submitting a single sector DMA r/w taskfile manually, then proceeding with the remaining sectors in another r/w taskfile. This doubles the interrupts on the affected chipset/drive combos, but still allows large requests. I'm not terribly fond of partial completions, as I feel they add complexity, particularly so in my case: I can simply use the same error paths for both the single-sector taskfile and the "everything else" taskfile, regardless of which taskfile throws the error. (thinking out loud) Though best for simplicity, I am curious if a succession of "tiny/huge" transaction pairs are efficient? I am hoping that the drive's cache, coupled with the fact that each pair of taskfiles is sequentially contiguous, will not hurt speed too much over a non-errata configuration... Jeff - 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/