Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161043AbWBAMoF (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2006 07:44:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161049AbWBAMoF (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2006 07:44:05 -0500 Received: from uproxy.gmail.com ([66.249.92.192]:41015 "EHLO uproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161043AbWBAMoD convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2006 07:44:03 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=mUM4BJ4CBnVBJMCg3fynEWjJgg49Mefg5OrHH7Jlxhbg/jt/4ydc23RaN2yYcECfptcyqGybvNnrDa4UKxnHl4HdyfJJ2LIwMJd9i1k1DQEoJFlHpj4lZFDqcRTIRB6nSA4LIkDxt9wX6J/DIf+qiRASjFZ3dWe4LwQ04ACqg9U= Message-ID: <58cb370e0602010444m46a39705q4a3043778df1628d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 13:44:01 +0100 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: Jeremy Higdon Subject: Re: [patch] SGIIOC4 limit request size Cc: Jes Sorensen , Alan Cox , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060201113607.GF152005@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <58cb370e0602010234p62521a00h6d8920c84cac44d5@mail.gmail.com> <20060201104913.GA152005@sgi.com> <58cb370e0602010308o4cde24aeg8d629b1b3d45cdd3@mail.gmail.com> <20060201111754.GB152005@sgi.com> <58cb370e0602010326k265ef278k4010df13fb5adf8c@mail.gmail.com> <20060201113607.GF152005@sgi.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1406 Lines: 32 On 2/1/06, Jeremy Higdon wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 12:26:26PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > I'll send a better patch tomorrow. This one depends on a byte count > > > multiple of 2. Though according to the chip docs, it ignores bit 0 > > > of the byte count anyway (and the address for that matter). So I > > > think this is functionally correct. But I think the xcount variable > > > is superfluous. > > > > it seems so > > Here's one that removes xcount. It seems to work too. > Should we set hwif->rqsize to 256, or are we pretty safe in > expecting that the default won't rise? The driver should be > able to handle more, but this ioc4 hardware is weird, and it > probably wouldn't get tested if a general change were made :-) The current maximum request size is: * 256 for LBA28 and ATAPI devices * 1024 for LBA48 devices The maximum request size allowed by IDE driver for LBA48 devices will change to 65536 but block layer will continue to use 1024 as a default maximum request size, also IIRC sgiioc4 IDE is used only for ATAPI devices. So I think that there is no need to worry about ->rqsize. 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/