From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 11/11] aacraid: use pci_set_dma_max_seg_size Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:31:30 -0400 Message-ID: <471F2D12.50006@garzik.org> References: <67bb10d9f4e9473ddc84d9839114602c1966f19f.tomof@acm.org> <20071024173019I.tomof@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:60468 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751124AbXJXLbk (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:31:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20071024173019I.tomof@acm.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: FUJITA Tomonori Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com, aacraid@adaptec.com, fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > This sets the segment size limit properly via pci_set_dma_max_seg_size > and remove blk_queue_max_segment_size because scsi-ml calls it. > > Signed-off-by: FUJITA Tomonori > --- > drivers/scsi/aacraid/linit.c | 9 ++++++--- > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/aacraid/linit.c b/drivers/scsi/aacraid/linit.c > index 038980b..04d6a65 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/aacraid/linit.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/aacraid/linit.c > @@ -435,9 +435,6 @@ static int aac_slave_configure(struct scsi_device *sdev) > else if (depth < 2) > depth = 2; > scsi_adjust_queue_depth(sdev, MSG_ORDERED_TAG, depth); > - if (!(((struct aac_dev *)host->hostdata)->adapter_info.options & > - AAC_OPT_NEW_COMM)) > - blk_queue_max_segment_size(sdev->request_queue, 65536); > } else > scsi_adjust_queue_depth(sdev, 0, 1); > > @@ -1045,6 +1042,12 @@ static int __devinit aac_probe_one(struct pci_dev *pdev, > if (error < 0) > goto out_deinit; > > + if (!(aac->adapter_info.options & AAC_OPT_NEW_COMM)) { > + error = pci_set_dma_max_seg_size(pdev, 65536); > + if (error) > + goto out_deinit; > + } is this needed, given that the default is already 65536? Jeff