[cc'ing Albert and linux-ide] Alan Cox wrote: > /from the media. */ >> > + if (qc->nbytes < 2048) >> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> > + >> > /* No ATAPI DMA in smart mode */ >> > if (itdev->smart) >> > return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> > >> >> This looks like a gross hack. Aren't you supposed to inspect >> the command instead and whitelist the ones you know are OK, >> like pata_pdc2027x.c and sata_promise.c do? > > It does seem to be about transfer size in the IT821x case not commands. > It may be to do with how we issue ATAPI command transfer sizes from high > up (patch went to Jeff) but for now this is definitely the right approach > > Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I wonder whether we should be using similar check in generic path too. We have quite a few cases where MWDMA ATAPI devices choking on commands with small transfer sizes. I don't think we'll experience significant performance regression with this applied and even if there is some, it's far better to have slightly slower working device. What do you guys think? -- tejun - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
