Mike Christie wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Mike Christie wrote: >>> Actually, I do not think we did this in 2.6.19. Tomo added a bug when he >>> ported a patch and mixed up some things so we did something weird for >>> 2.6.20-rc1. >> Ah, ok. Warring bugs. Have you pinpointed the original one? Is it your >> original "block: support larger block pc requests" after all? It looks >> like yours is the one that did the big changes, with Tomo then fixing some >> of the fallout? > > I am not completely convinced this bug is the "block: support larger > block pc requests" patches fault. If I revert the jiffies_to_msecs usage > then it works for me. On my system I have > CONFIG_HZ_250=y > CONFIG_HZ=250 > > With the attached patch, nero finds the cd drives and I can burn disks. > There is no errors from the ide layer like before. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > diff --git a/block/scsi_ioctl.c b/block/scsi_ioctl.c > index 2528a0c..aded9a0 100644 > --- a/block/scsi_ioctl.c > +++ b/block/scsi_ioctl.c > @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ static int sg_io(struct file *file, requ > > rq->cmd_type = REQ_TYPE_BLOCK_PC; > > - rq->timeout = jiffies_to_msecs(hdr->timeout); > + rq->timeout = (hdr->timeout * HZ) / 1000; > if (!rq->timeout) > rq->timeout = q->sg_timeout; > if (!rq->timeout) Or if that patch is wrong maybe we want something like what drivers/scsi/sg.c uses: ul_timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(srp->header.timeout); timeout = (ul_timeout < INT_MAX) ? ul_timeout : INT_MAX; I do not think we should be doing jiffies_to_msecs though. - 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
