Jeff Garzik wrote: > Boaz Harrosh wrote: >> FUJITA Tomonori wrote: >>> From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests >>> Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:00:21 +0300 >>> >>>> Yes Tomo found it at ata_scsi_slave_config(). Attached below the way I >>>> fixed it. Now it works with 127. >>> I think that we can just remove blk_queue_max_phys_segments since the >>> ata drivers seem to set sg_tablesize to LIBATA_MAX_PRD. >>> >> Who should send a patch upstream? (I cc'ed Jeff Garzik) >> >> Boaz >> >> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c >> index dd81fa7..3660f3e 100644 >> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c >> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c >> @@ -800,8 +800,6 @@ int ata_scsi_slave_config(struct scsi_device *sdev) >> >> ata_scsi_sdev_config(sdev); >> >> - blk_queue_max_phys_segments(sdev->request_queue, LIBATA_MAX_PRD); >> - >> sdev->manage_start_stop = 1; > > I don't mind the patch, but could someone refresh me as to the context? > > Is there something wrong with the above code, or is it simply redundant > to the scsi_host_template settings in each LLDD? > > Jeff > > > Hi Jeff What happens is that if SCSI-ml sets an higher value than LIBATA_MAX_PRD (=128) than every thing is OK and libata-scsi will only see its LIBATA_MAX_PRD. But what happens if SCSI-ml sets a lower value? It will than crash on unexpected high sg count. My first Patch was an "if >" but Tomo said that it is redundant since drivers do that already. So I guess it is your call. Can it be removed or we need a: if ( sdev->request_queue->max_phys_segments > LIBATA_MAX_PRD) Boaz - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
