This logic sequence bothers me slightly:
Tejun Heo wrote:
Separate out rw ATA taskfile building from ata_scsi_rw_xlat() into
ata_build_tf(). This will be used to improve media error handling.
...
+ if ((dev->flags & (ATA_DFLAG_PIO | ATA_DFLAG_NCQ_OFF |
+ ATA_DFLAG_NCQ)) == ATA_DFLAG_NCQ) {
+ /* yay, NCQ */
+ if (!lba_48_ok(block, n_block))
+ return -ERANGE;
...
+ } else if (dev->flags & ATA_DFLAG_LBA) {
+ tf->flags |= ATA_TFLAG_LBA;
+
+ if (lba_28_ok(block, n_block)) {
+ /* use LBA28 */
+ tf->device |= (block >> 24) & 0xf;
+ } else if (lba_48_ok(block, n_block)) {
+ if (!(dev->flags & ATA_DFLAG_LBA48))
+ return -ERANGE;
...
In the first case, if !lba_48_ok(), then we should at least attempt
to see if the request can be issued via non-NCQ.
Something like this:
if (lba_48_ok() && dev->flags & (ATA_DFLAG_PIO|ATA_DFLAG_NCQ_OFF|ATA_DFLAG_NCQ)) == ATA_DFLAG_NCQ) {
/* yay, NCQ */
...
} else if (dev->flags & ATA_DFLAG_LBA) {
...
..except prettier! ;)
In theory, it looks like an impossible sequence anyway..
if we have the NCQ flag set, then we probably already *know*
that LBA48 is okay. But since we're not making that assumption,
let's give it the benefit of a doubt and try non-NCQ if LBA48 is a no-go.
Cheers
-
To unsubscribe from this list: 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
