From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE98DC31E45 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:39:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org (mail.linuxfoundation.org [140.211.169.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEFC920851 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:39:31 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AEFC920851 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=iommu-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Received: from mail.linux-foundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EAA4B49; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:39:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1AEA949 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:39:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7466B174 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:39:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by newverein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id D867268B02; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 09:39:00 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 09:39:00 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Alan Stern Subject: Re: How to resolve an issue in swiotlb environment? Message-ID: <20190613073900.GC12093@lst.de> References: <20190612120653.GA25285@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Cc: Linux-Renesas , "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" , Oliver Neukum , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" , Christoph Hellwig X-BeenThere: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues for Linux IOMMU support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: iommu-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:43:11AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > Would it be okay to rely on the assumption that USB block devices never > have block size < 512? (We could even add code to the driver to > enforce this, although refusing to handle such devices at all might be > worse than getting an occasional error.) sd.c only supports a few specific sector size, and none of them is < 512 bytes: if (sector_size != 512 && sector_size != 1024 && sector_size != 2048 && sector_size != 4096) { ... sdkp->capacity = 0; _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu