From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <B.Zolnierkiewicz@elka.pw.edu.pl>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5 ide 48-bit usage
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 15:35:04 +0200 (MET DST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.30.0305081532170.12362-100000@mion.elka.pw.edu.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030508132314.GZ823@suse.de>
On Thu, 8 May 2003, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, May 08 2003, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 8 May 2003, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > > n Thu, May 08 2003, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > > if (!hwif->rqsize)
> > > > hwif->rqsize = hwif->addressing ? 65536 : 256;
> > >
> > > btw, you didn't get this right this time either :-)
> >
> > It is right.
> > hwif->addressing means hwif supports 48-bit
>
> No it doesn't, that's what I keep saying:
>
> static int probe_lba_addressing (ide_drive_t *drive, int arg)
> {
> drive->addressing = 0;
>
> if (HWIF(drive)->addressing)
> return 0;
>
> ...
>
> so if hwif->addressing != 0, you will never allow 48-bit lba on any
> units on this hardware interface. So the correct logic is:
>
> hwif->rqsize = hwif->addressing ? 256 : 65536;
>
> as in the patch.
Yep, you are right, hwif->addressing logic is reversed, what a mess.
> > hwif->rqsize means max rq size for _hwif_
>
> Correct.
>
> > > drive->addressing == 1, 48-bit is ok
> > > hwif->addressing == 1, 48-bit is _not_ ok
> >
> > And?
> > Even if !drive->addressing, hwif->addressing can be 1,
>
> If hwif->addressing == 1, drive->addressing will never be anything _but_
> 0.
>
> > so hwif->rqsize can be 65536.
>
> Wrong
>
> > > below patch covers the lat change as well, boots and works on my router.
> >
> > Patch still misses pdx202xx_old.c changes :-).
>
> Which?
Checking for taskfile requests.
> > Two new ones:
> > - rq_lba48(rq) should check for rq->hard_* values
>
> Doesn't matter. I actually only thought about dma, in which case it
> doesn't matter because we never change sector or nr_sectors until after
> we have called ide_dma_end. For pio, it's no more reliable with hard_*
> than without. This is all for end_request context of course, at init
> time it's all the same. Essentially, we _need_ the taskfile changes for
> this to work. In that case we can limit rq_lba48() to init request time,
> and set task->addressing and use that from then on.
Yes.
> > - after some thought, drop _all_ changes to ide_dump_status()
> > (we may hit error when rq->nr_sectors is already < 256)
>
> Ditto, cannot be reliable without the taskfile changes.
>
> I won't bother with anything new until the taskfile stuff is in.
Good decision.
--
Bartlomiej
> --
> Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-05-08 13:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-05-07 8:49 [PATCH] 2.5 ide 48-bit usage Jens Axboe
2003-05-07 16:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-05-07 16:46 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-07 17:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-05-07 17:33 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-07 17:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-05-07 17:50 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-07 19:58 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2003-05-07 20:19 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-08 7:56 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-08 11:01 ` Alan Cox
2003-05-08 12:01 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-12 21:41 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-05-13 6:44 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-08 11:34 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2003-05-08 11:59 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-08 12:20 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2003-05-08 12:26 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-08 12:36 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-08 13:16 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2003-05-08 13:23 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-08 13:35 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz [this message]
2003-05-08 13:37 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-08 14:47 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-08 14:51 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-08 14:46 ` Alan Cox
2003-05-08 15:49 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2003-05-08 16:16 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-08 16:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-05-08 16:34 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-08 16:59 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2003-05-09 7:40 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-08 22:06 ` Alan Cox
2003-05-09 7:06 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-09 8:28 ` [PATCH][RFC] Sanitize hwif/drive addressing (was Re: [PATCH] 2.5 ide 48-bit usage) Jens Axboe
2003-05-09 11:07 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2003-05-09 12:03 ` Jens Axboe
2003-05-07 21:45 ` [PATCH] 2.5 ide 48-bit usage Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2003-05-07 22:03 ` Alan Cox
2003-05-07 22:55 ` H. Peter Anvin
2003-05-07 18:29 ` Alan Cox
2003-05-07 19:30 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.SOL.4.30.0305081532170.12362-100000@mion.elka.pw.edu.pl \
--to=b.zolnierkiewicz@elka.pw.edu.pl \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).