From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LmVwR-0000MP-6m
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:26:59 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LmVwM-0000JQ-Ll
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:26:58 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40757 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LmVwL-0000Ix-La
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:26:53 -0400
Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:13945)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>)
	id 1LmVwL-00052x-Bi
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:26:53 -0400
Received: from [10.80.225.184] ([10.80.225.184])
	by smtp01.ad.xensource.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2PGQnxH030010
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:26:49 -0700
Message-ID: <49CA59AE.8060605@eu.citrix.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:19:58 +0000
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] honor IDE_DMA_BUF_SECTORS
References: <49CA3591.1010309@eu.citrix.com> <49CA4C3D.1070705@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <49CA4C3D.1070705@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Avi Kivity wrote:

> Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> after the recent introduction of dma_buf_prepare we stopped honoring
>> IDE_DMA_BUF_SECTORS (the guest can issue dma requests with a greater
>> total length than IDE_DMA_BUF_SECTORS).
>> This patch adds the IDE_DMA_BUF_SECTORS limit back in place.
>>
>> Comments are welcome.
>>   
> 
> Aren't 64K sector requests legal?
> 
> Looking at ide_cmd_lba48_transform().
> 


I am not sure about that, but I would think not since we define MAX_MULT_SECTORS 16
If I change MAX_MULT_SECTORS, am I supposed to see smaller dma requests?