Re: [PATCH] 2.5 ide 48-bit usage

[Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>]

On Thu, May 08 2003, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 8 May 2003, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, May 08 2003, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 8 May 2003, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >
> > > > n Thu, May 08 2003, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > > > 	if (!hwif->rqsize)
> > > > > 		hwif->rqsize = hwif->addressing ? 65536 : 256;
> > > >
> > > > btw, you didn't get this right this time either :-)
> > >
> > > It is right.
> > > hwif->addressing means hwif supports 48-bit
> >
> > No it doesn't, that's what I keep saying:
> >
> > static int probe_lba_addressing (ide_drive_t *drive, int arg)
> > {
> >         drive->addressing =  0;
> >
> >         if (HWIF(drive)->addressing)
> >                 return 0;
> >
> > 	...
> >
> > so if hwif->addressing != 0, you will never allow 48-bit lba on any
> > units on this hardware interface. So the correct logic is:
> >
> > 	hwif->rqsize = hwif->addressing ? 256 : 65536;
> >
> > as in the patch.
> 
> Yep, you are right, hwif->addressing logic is reversed, what a mess.

Very much so...

> > > Patch still misses pdx202xx_old.c changes :-).
> >
> > Which?
> 
> Checking for taskfile requests.

Ah ok, same thing I complain about futher down :)

> > Ditto, cannot be reliable without the taskfile changes.
> >
> > I won't bother with anything new until the taskfile stuff is in.
> 
> Good decision.

So what's the time frame on that?

-- 
Jens Axboe