Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760140AbXKNB6j (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:58:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756825AbXKNB6J (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:58:09 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.187]:14664 "EHLO rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755412AbXKNB6G (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:58:06 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=AFLT66y3KrR3tt8FuLYxDA9oEHKcjwYAKVFvSbh2qitFM4Pt3/YRbXDlBQWcX8BbYG+CFIC0ju22akquXfZ3NbTEfv6JikJ7MwajzHtZrpNp3veVQ6vQ7JutAGjSRwylDvEvvGEZ5G2o/ZdFJu8QQ/2ftPYkIaGV7ytQz3AYxIM= Message-ID: <473A5626.7040008@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:57:58 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070801) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Lord CC: Robert Hancock , linux-kernel , ide , Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] sata_nv: fix ADMA ATAPI issues with memory over 4GB References: <4738DE21.8090702@shaw.ca> <47390B2F.7090105@gmail.com> <47392768.3030509@shaw.ca> <47392B3D.1020101@gmail.com> <4739B0E5.2010303@rtr.ca> In-Reply-To: <4739B0E5.2010303@rtr.ca> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1228 Lines: 32 Mark Lord wrote: > Tejun Heo wrote: >> Robert Hancock wrote: >>> Tejun Heo wrote: > .. >>> Yes, it should likely do something with these return values. Though >>> theoretically it shouldn't fail, since the DMA mask is either 32-bit, >>> which shouldn't fail, or one that was successfully set before. Also I >>> don't think the SCSI layer actually checks the slave_config return >>> value.. sigh. >> >> Then please at least add WARN_ON() && another reason why allocating / >> deallocating resources from ->slave_config isn't such a good idea. > .. > > The entire point of "slave_configure" is to provide a point for the LLD > to do per-device data structure allocation/init. > > And yes, SCSI does check the return code. Whether the code around that > check > is buggy or not is another question, but it's always worked for me. I see but I still prefer having PRD, pad buf allocation/release in ->port_start/stop() primarily for consistency. Robert, what do you think? -- tejun - 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/