On Sep 5, 2009, at 12:16 AM, Alexander Motin wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday 03 September 2009 3:45:07 pm Ivan Voras wrote:
But ciss doesn't reference it at all so either it deviously
assumes it
or is independent of it.
Actually, it may be much worse, it may be that the author of ciss
(4) new that
ciss(4)'s largest supported I/O size was larger than 128k so they
didn't
bother handling the limit at all giving the false impression the
hardware has
no limit.
In cases of ATA and CAM infrastructures it was is so, that if driver
does not sets max_iosize or maxio respectively, it uses DFLTPHYS. So
problem is only about non-ATA/CAM RAIDs or cases where wrong value
could
be specified explicitly.
ciss(4) driver was explicitly limited to 64K, until somebody could
review it's capabilities.
Right, but I don't want people blindly changing this in any of the CAM
drivers without understanding what is going on. Also, there are
plenty of non-CAM block drivers that haven't been audited very well
yet, if at all.
Scott
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
