Re: [PATCH 5/6] libata: Per device max command length checking

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Brian King wrote:
Currently, libata sets the scsi_host's max_cmd_len to
be the minimum of the max command lengths of all devices
attached to the same ATA port. This patch moves this checking
into libata so libata can check this on a per device
basis and still allows an ATA host to implement its
own host limit.

Signed-off-by: Brian King <brking@xxxxxxxxxx>
---

 libata-dev-bjking1/drivers/scsi/libata-core.c |    8 +-------
 libata-dev-bjking1/drivers/scsi/libata-scsi.c |    6 ++++++
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff -puN drivers/scsi/libata-core.c~libata_max_cmd_len drivers/scsi/libata-core.c
--- libata-dev/drivers/scsi/libata-core.c~libata_max_cmd_len	2006-06-07 10:54:09.000000000 -0500
+++ libata-dev-bjking1/drivers/scsi/libata-core.c	2006-06-07 10:54:09.000000000 -0500
@@ -1415,12 +1415,6 @@ static int ata_dev_configure(struct ata_
 				       cdb_intr_string);
 	}
- ap->host->max_cmd_len = 0;
-	for (i = 0; i < ATA_MAX_DEVICES; i++)
-		ap->host->max_cmd_len = max_t(unsigned int,
-					      ap->host->max_cmd_len,
-					      ap->device[i].cdb_len);
-
 	/* limit bridge transfers to udma5, 200 sectors */
 	if (ata_dev_knobble(dev)) {
 		if (print_info)
@@ -5166,7 +5160,7 @@ static void ata_host_init(struct ata_por
 	host->max_lun = 1;
 	host->max_channel = 1;
 	host->unique_id = ata_unique_id++;
-	host->max_cmd_len = 12;
+	host->max_cmd_len = ATAPI_CDB_LEN;
ap->lock = &host_set->lock;
 	ap->flags = ATA_FLAG_DISABLED;
diff -puN drivers/scsi/libata-scsi.c~libata_max_cmd_len drivers/scsi/libata-scsi.c
--- libata-dev/drivers/scsi/libata-scsi.c~libata_max_cmd_len	2006-06-07 10:54:09.000000000 -0500
+++ libata-dev-bjking1/drivers/scsi/libata-scsi.c	2006-06-07 10:54:09.000000000 -0500
@@ -2607,6 +2607,12 @@ static inline int __ata_scsi_queuecmd(st
 {
 	int rc = 0;
+ if (unlikely(cmd->cmd_len > dev->cdb_len)) {
+		cmd->result = (DID_ABORT << 16);
+		done(cmd);
+		return 0;
+	}

:( do we really need to be adding this to the hot path, for such an unlikely case?

Further, I wonder why this matters? Doesn't ipr present devices as one per port?

	Jeff



-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux