> a) Why was this limit put in there? It limits both transfer speed and > request size. If it's due to some dodgy drive/bridge, perhaps we > should just check for that and only apply the transfer limits when > detected (or blacklisted). On the bridge setups I've seen, I've never > had problems with killing the limit. Various old bridges need it - and you can't detect the bridge type. > > b) Put in a whitelist, easy to do for these Mtron drives. > > c) Add a parameter to turn it on (or off, depending on the default) for > a specific drive. > > I'm in favor of a) personally, but I'd like to hear why the check was > added originally first. Dropping 20-30% of the throughput performance on > the floor without option seems like a really bad choice. Can I suggest d) Assume the bridge is ok but teach the SATA error handling code that if there is a timeout immediately with such a bridge then to flip down to UDMA5 and knobble the transfer length. -- 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
