[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4505C3BF.8070601@garzik.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:14:55 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Subject: Re: What's in libata-dev.git
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 11 2006, Alan Cox wrote:
>>>> We could perhaps do it by ATA version - 255 for ATA < 3 256 for ATA 3+,
>>> Might be sane, yep.
>>
>> Since we're doing this just for paranoia, and nobody can actually
>> produce a problem case, it's safer just to hardcode 255 for all cases,
>> than try to come up with a hueristic that won't be exercised for another
>> decade...
>
> If it's a real problem, yes I agree. If it's just hand waving, then no.
> The fact that 2.4 and 2.6 has been using 256 for ages really tells me
> that no one has been affected by this. The SUSE bugzilla certainly
> hasn't seen any entries on it either.
>
>> Most new disks are lba48 anyway. (should we use 65535 there too???)
>
> Heh, good question. Given that the limit is so high, we might as well
> just use 65535. It's not nearly as sensitive as the lba28 case.
Well, I _do_ think it's just hand waving, but OTOH I don't see much harm
in using 255. Contiguous 256-sector reads and writes have gotta be
pretty rare. But that's just a hand-waving guess too ;-)
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists