From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EsQgP-0007t0-LV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:17:01 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EsQgN-0007sQ-Mj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:17:01 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EsQgN-0007sL-Cw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:16:59 -0500 Received: from [195.184.98.160] (helo=virtualhost.dk) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1EsQgx-0005gX-3F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:17:35 -0500 Received: from [62.242.22.158] (helo=router.home.kernel.dk) by virtualhost.dk with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1EsQex-00005e-00 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:15:31 +0100 Received: from nelson.home.kernel.dk ([192.168.0.33] helo=kernel.dk) by router.home.kernel.dk with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1EsQeu-0004Ep-9z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:15:28 +0100 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:17:17 +0100 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] lba48 support Message-ID: <20051230201716.GV2772@suse.de> References: <20051229220752.GP2772@suse.de> <43B5B156.5030007@bellard.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43B5B156.5030007@bellard.org> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Fri, Dec 30 2005, Fabrice Bellard wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > >Saw the posts on this the other day and had a few spare hours to play > >with this. Works for me, with and without DMA (didn't test mult mode, > >but that should work fine too). > > > >Test with caution though, it's changing the ide code so could eat your > >data if there's a bug there... Most clever OS's don't use lba48 even for > >lba48 capable drives, unless the device is > 2^28 sectors and the > >current request is past that (but they could be taking advantage of the > >larger transfer size possible, in which case lba48 will be used even for > >low sectors...). > > Thank you for the patch ! At least two details should be corrected > before I can apply it: > > 1) Each duplicated IDE register acts as a 2 byte FIFO, so the logic you > added in the write function should be modified (the regs_written field > is not needed). Perfect, I wasn't very fond of that approach either (it seemed fragile). > 2) The read back logic should be implemented (HOB bit in the device > control register). Indeed. I'll get these things fixed up, wont be before monday though. -- Jens Axboe