From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH] sata_nv: fix ADMA ATAPI issues with memory over 4GB Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:57:58 +0900 Message-ID: <473A5626.7040008@gmail.com> References: <4738DE21.8090702@shaw.ca> <47390B2F.7090105@gmail.com> <47392768.3030509@shaw.ca> <47392B3D.1020101@gmail.com> <4739B0E5.2010303@rtr.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4739B0E5.2010303@rtr.ca> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Lord Cc: Robert Hancock , linux-kernel , ide , Jeff Garzik List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Mark Lord wrote: > Tejun Heo wrote: >> Robert Hancock wrote: >>> Tejun Heo wrote: > .. >>> Yes, it should likely do something with these return values. Though >>> theoretically it shouldn't fail, since the DMA mask is either 32-bit, >>> which shouldn't fail, or one that was successfully set before. Also I >>> don't think the SCSI layer actually checks the slave_config return >>> value.. sigh. >> >> Then please at least add WARN_ON() && another reason why allocating / >> deallocating resources from ->slave_config isn't such a good idea. > .. > > The entire point of "slave_configure" is to provide a point for the LLD > to do per-device data structure allocation/init. > > And yes, SCSI does check the return code. Whether the code around that > check > is buggy or not is another question, but it's always worked for me. I see but I still prefer having PRD, pad buf allocation/release in ->port_start/stop() primarily for consistency. Robert, what do you think? -- tejun