From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: add support for NCQ commands for SG interface Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:39:45 +0900 Message-ID: <20151023053945.GA24618@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <1445082519-8160-1-git-send-email-vinayak.kale@seagate.com> <20151022085717.GB24379@mtj.duckdns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-yk0-f172.google.com ([209.85.160.172]:35540 "EHLO mail-yk0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751886AbbJWFjw (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2015 01:39:52 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Vinayak Kale Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vinayak Kale , sumit.g.gupta@seagate.com Hello, On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:01:35AM +0530, Vinayak Kale wrote: > > It looks like it'd work given that it's forcing qc->tag into > > tf->nsect. What's the use case tho? > > We need to issue NCQ commands with priority bit from user space application. > > BTW, Sergei Shtylyov raised concern regarding usefulness of adding > ATA_TFLAG_LBA to tf->flags. Can you please comment on that as well? > Accordingly I will either keep it or discard it in V2. Thanks. I like the change but can you please put that in a separate patch? Also, can you please verify that this works fine with multiple regular NCQ commands in flight? Thanks. -- tejun