From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Tom Yan <tom.ty89@gmail.com>
Cc: martin.petersen@oracle.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] ata: bump ATA_MAX_SECTORS_LBA48 to 65536
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 14:26:10 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160714182610.GP15005@htj.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGnHSE=0Bwg6NcBRfcixSncT7-7y5Z6hBfjireSr1MawShHVVA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 02:22:52AM +0800, Tom Yan wrote:
> On 14 July 2016 at 01:03, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > It's used to device max_sectors.
> >
>
> Not really. "max_sectors" of ATA drives have been set to
> BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS, for at least quite some time.
>
> >
> > This is way too gratuitous. There's no rationale for it while it has
> > actual real-world risks. max_sectors is staying at 65535.
> >
>
> That's alright. I don't have strong opinion on whether we should bump
> this anyway. So I suppose we should replace the TODO comment with
> something like "avoid count to be 0000h"? And maybe also change
> ATA_MAX_SECTORS to 255 (with comment "avoid count to be 00h")?
I'd just leave both alone. It's one sector difference one way or the
other and those numbers have a pretty long history. There's no reason
to disturb them at this point. There's no actual gain whatsoever but
there is some actual risk.
Thanks.
--
tejun
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-14 18:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-13 4:47 [RFC 1/3] ata: bump ATA_MAX_SECTORS_LBA48 to 65536 tom.ty89
2016-07-13 4:47 ` [RFC 2/3] ata: make lba_{28,48}_ok() use ATA_MAX_SECTORS{,_LBA48} tom.ty89
2016-07-14 21:09 ` [PATCH] " tom.ty89
2016-07-18 22:25 ` Tejun Heo
2016-07-13 4:47 ` [RFC 3/3] libata-scsi: add optimal transfer length to block limits VPD tom.ty89
2016-07-13 17:04 ` Tejun Heo
2016-07-14 18:13 ` Tom Yan
2016-07-13 17:03 ` [RFC 1/3] ata: bump ATA_MAX_SECTORS_LBA48 to 65536 Tejun Heo
2016-07-14 18:22 ` Tom Yan
2016-07-14 18:26 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160714182610.GP15005@htj.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=tom.ty89@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).