Re: What's in libata-dev.git

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 11 2006, Alan Cox wrote:
>>>> We could perhaps do it by ATA version - 255 for ATA < 3 256 for ATA 3+,
>>> Might be sane, yep.
>>
>> Since we're doing this just for paranoia, and nobody can actually 
>> produce a problem case, it's safer just to hardcode 255 for all cases, 
>> than try to come up with a hueristic that won't be exercised for another 
>> decade...
> 
> If it's a real problem, yes I agree. If it's just hand waving, then no.
> The fact that 2.4 and 2.6 has been using 256 for ages really tells me
> that no one has been affected by this. The SUSE bugzilla certainly
> hasn't seen any entries on it either.
> 
>> Most new disks are lba48 anyway.  (should we use 65535 there too???)
> 
> Heh, good question. Given that the limit is so high, we might as well
> just use 65535. It's not nearly as sensitive as the lba28 case.

Well, I _do_ think it's just hand waving, but OTOH I don't see much harm 
in using 255.  Contiguous 256-sector reads and writes have gotta be 
pretty rare.  But that's just a hand-waving guess too ;-)

	Jeff