[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46EE09D3.9010201@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:00:03 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
Jeff Norden <jeff@...h.tntech.edu>, alan@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Albert CC Lee <albertcc@...ibm.com>,
IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] pata_it821x: fix lost interrupt with atapi devices
[cc'ing Albert and linux-ide]
Alan Cox wrote:
> /from the media. */
>> > + if (qc->nbytes < 2048)
>> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> > +
>> > /* No ATAPI DMA in smart mode */
>> > if (itdev->smart)
>> > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> >
>>
>> This looks like a gross hack. Aren't you supposed to inspect
>> the command instead and whitelist the ones you know are OK,
>> like pata_pdc2027x.c and sata_promise.c do?
>
> It does seem to be about transfer size in the IT821x case not commands.
> It may be to do with how we issue ATAPI command transfer sizes from high
> up (patch went to Jeff) but for now this is definitely the right approach
>
> Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com>
I wonder whether we should be using similar check in generic path too.
We have quite a few cases where MWDMA ATAPI devices choking on commands
with small transfer sizes. I don't think we'll experience significant
performance regression with this applied and even if there is some, it's
far better to have slightly slower working device.
What do you guys think?
--
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