From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Magnus Damm Subject: BusLogic: MAX_DMA_ADDRESS Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:26:26 +0100 Message-ID: Reply-To: Magnus Damm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.194]:10026 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262342AbUKQP01 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:26:27 -0500 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 63so646169wri for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 07:26:26 -0800 (PST) Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Hello, The constant MAX_DMA_ADDRESS is used at two places in the code, and I believe that ">=" comparsion should be used instead of ">". Compare with other drivers that use that constant. Also, comments say something about hardware problems related to 16MiB but the code checks against MAX_DMA_ADDRESS that could be set to something else than 16MiB on non-i386 archs. I think the most portable solution would be to remove the entire "high_memory vs MAX_DMA_ADDRESS"-check and always enable bounce-buffers for ISA-devices and BT-445S. Who is running a 2.6-kernel on a machine with 16MiB or less RAM and SCSI these days anyway...? / magnus