From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LmWPX-0002Ar-KG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:57:03 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LmWPS-0002AA-Bw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:57:02 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33299 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LmWPS-0002A7-6R
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:56:58 -0400
Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:32752)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>)
	id 1LmWPR-0006XV-J8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:56:57 -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 n2PGus7G030075
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:56:55 -0700
Message-ID: <49CA60BA.5060704@eu.citrix.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:50:02 +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>	<49CA59AE.8060605@eu.citrix.com>
	<49CA5F9F.5040203@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <49CA5F9F.5040203@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:

> I think that's for pio, or maybe older DMA?  Certainly you wouldn't 
> expect to be limited to 16 sectors DMA.


Thanks for clarifying.

 
> Anyway I think IDE_DMA_BUF_SECTORS was a qemu limitation and did not 
> model real hardware behaviour.
> 


Therefore I must assume that we expect qemu to be able to handle any
kind of dma request coming from the guest, which at the moment is
limited to 64K sectors, am I right?