Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 May 2003 15:37:02 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.5 ide 48-bit usage |
| |
On Thu, May 08 2003, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > 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.
Very much so...
> > > Patch still misses pdx202xx_old.c changes :-). > > > > Which? > > Checking for taskfile requests.
Ah ok, same thing I complain about futher down :)
> > Ditto, cannot be reliable without the taskfile changes. > > > > I won't bother with anything new until the taskfile stuff is in. > > Good decision.
So what's the time frame on that?
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
| |