[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 <[email protected]>
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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
