[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <460E94C9.1040509@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 02:05:13 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To: Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
CC: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: libata bugfix: preserve LBA bit for HDIO_DRIVE_TASK
Mark Lord wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Mark Lord wrote:
>>> Ideally, this would go into linux-2.6.21.
>>>
>>> Preserve the LBA bit in the DevSel/Head register for HDIO_DRIVE_TASK.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Lord <mlord@...ox.com>
>>> ---
>>> --- linux/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c.orig 2007-03-21
>>> 13:35:02.000000000 -0400
>>> +++ linux/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c 2007-03-30 17:40:58.000000000
>>> -0400
>>> @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@
>>> scsi_cmd[8] = args[3];
>>> scsi_cmd[10] = args[4];
>>> scsi_cmd[12] = args[5];
>>> - scsi_cmd[13] = args[6] & 0x0f;
>>> + scsi_cmd[13] = args[6] & 0x4f;
>>> scsi_cmd[14] = args[0];
>>>
>>> /* Good values for timeout and retries? Values below
>>
>> IDE seems to be just overriding devsel (0x10) and leaving the rest
>> alone. Maybe we should do (args[6] & ~0x10) here? Or is it safer
>> this way?
>
> Same thoughts here. I went "conservative" on this one,
> because the entire field has been all zeros until this patch,
> and I didn't want to trigger any possible latent bugs in libata.
>
> Whatever.
Yeah, I agree 'whatever' should work here. :-)
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
--
tejun
-
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