On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Tom Yan <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 August 2016 at 04:23, Shaun Tancheff <sh...@tancheff.com> wrote:
>> +/**
>> + * ata_format_dsm_trim_descr() - SATL Write Same to ATA SCT Write Same
>> + * @cmd: SCSI command being translated
>> + * @lba: Starting sector
>> + * @num: Number of logical sectors to be zero'd.
>> + *
>> + * Rewrite the WRITE SAME descriptor to be an SCT Write Same formatted
>> + * descriptor.
>> + * NOTE: Writes a pattern (0's) in the foreground.
>> + * Large write-same requents can timeout.
>> + */
>> +static void ata_format_sct_write_same(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd, u64 lba, u64
>> num)
>> +{
>> + u16 *sctpg;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&ata_scsi_rbuf_lock, flags);
>> + sctpg = ((void *)ata_scsi_rbuf);
>
> Because ata_scsi_rbuf is of a fixed size of ATA_SCSI_RBUF_SIZE.
>
> #define ATA_SCSI_RBUF_SIZE 4096
> ...
> static u8 ata_scsi_rbuf[ATA_SCSI_RBUF_SIZE];
>
>> +
>> + put_unaligned_le16(0x0002, &sctpg[0]); /* SCT_ACT_WRITE_SAME */
>> + put_unaligned_le16(0x0101, &sctpg[1]); /* WRITE PTRN FG */
>> + put_unaligned_le64(lba, &sctpg[2]);
>> + put_unaligned_le64(num, &sctpg[6]);
>> + put_unaligned_le32(0u, &sctpg[10]);
>> +
>> + sg_copy_from_buffer(scsi_sglist(cmd), scsi_sg_count(cmd), sctpg,
>> 512);
>
> You have no reason to use 512 here instead of ATA_SCSI_RBUF_SIZE this time.
Ah .. because SCT Write Same is a fixed 512 byte transfer?
Ah .. because I only have 512 bytes to copy?
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ata_scsi_rbuf_lock, flags);
>> +}
