From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: libata+SGIO: is .dma_boundary respected? Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:38:42 -0500 Message-ID: <44205642.7070302@pobox.com> References: <441DD300.9050702@rtr.ca> <441F544A.6080301@pobox.com> <441F8478.50806@rtr.ca> <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:12973 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965076AbWCUTio (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:38:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20060321193538.GO4285@suse.de> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: Mark Lord , IDE/ATA development list , James Bottomley , Benjamin Herrenschmidt Jens Axboe wrote: > My explanation was for the block layer part of course, I'm hoping (did > not check) that the iommu has similar sane defaults. Part of the problem is that the iommu doesn't know as much as the block layer. > But this still really wants a unification of the dma restrictions... 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. Jeff