From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] ata: bump ATA_MAX_SECTORS_LBA48 to 65536 Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 14:26:10 -0400 Message-ID: <20160714182610.GP15005@htj.duckdns.org> References: <1c10437e3cd9be8556e77462b40ad53be542dfba.1468384890.git.tom.ty89@gmail.com> <20160713170308.GF4065@mtj.duckdns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tom Yan Cc: martin.petersen@oracle.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 02:22:52AM +0800, Tom Yan wrote: > On 14 July 2016 at 01:03, Tejun Heo 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