From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: increase LBA48 max sectors to 65535 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:07:25 +0100 Message-ID: <20060215130725.GP4203@suse.de> References: <1139754779159-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> <43EF8E61.5040409@pobox.com> <43EFD73D.4070207@gmail.com> <43F011DF.6020203@pobox.com> <20060215072449.GA31691@htj.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:40210 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1945928AbWBONIl (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:08:41 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060215072449.GA31691@htj.dyndns.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: Jeff Garzik , albertcc@tw.ibm.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 15 2006, Tejun Heo wrote: > max_hw_sectors/max_sectors separation patch made into the tree, > increase max_sectors to its hardware limit. > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo > > --- > > Jeff, first of all, thanks for the pointer. I have two more > questions. > > * I make ATA_MAX_SECTORS_LBA48 65535 (the 0000h case is supposed to be > broken, right?); however, the comment says 65534. Should it be > 65534? Since we never noticed any breakage on !sectors on lba28, I think we can safely assume that !sectors will work fine for lba48 as well. So why not just make it full 64k, eg 65536? ->max_hw_sectors is an unsigned int now, so 64k wont overflow it. -- Jens Axboe