From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: libata+SGIO: is .dma_boundary respected? Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:46:50 +0100 Message-ID: <20060321194649.GR4285@suse.de> References: <441F99AC.4000200@pobox.com> <442006BC.8020100@rtr.ca> <20060321184215.GJ4285@suse.de> <442051A0.1050200@rtr.ca> <4420541E.3070303@pobox.com> <44205484.9000702@rtr.ca> <44205525.20306@rtr.ca> <20060321193538.GO4285@suse.de> <44205642.7070302@pobox.com> <1142970206.3428.12.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:278 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751531AbWCUTrI (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:47:08 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1142970206.3428.12.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Jeff Garzik , Mark Lord , IDE/ATA development list , Benjamin Herrenschmidt On Tue, Mar 21 2006, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 14:38 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Strongly agreed. ISTR JamesB had some concrete thoughts in that > > direction, but they never made it beyond an IRC channel and/or a few > > emails. > > Actually, I had a patch for it ... but it never really went anywhere. > The argument being that the machines which would actually need it didn't > use IDE anyway ... Do really never have segment or boundary restrictions outside of IDE? Seems to me that supporting that would be the conservative and sane thing to do. -- Jens Axboe