From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH] [1/22] Add new sense_buffer_mask host template field Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:48:28 -0800 Message-ID: <1203950908.3254.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200802251235.889863872@firstfloor.org> <20080224233513.F083B1B4183@basil.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from accolon.hansenpartnership.com ([76.243.235.52]:34940 "EHLO accolon.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753925AbYBYOsh (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:48:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080224233513.F083B1B4183@basil.firstfloor.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 00:35 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > sense buffers are something that still needs to be explicitely > bounced in the scsi layer. Instead of using the global unchecked_isa_dma > flag define a special fine grained mask for this. > > I decided to use a full dma mask because that is most useful for some future > infrastructure work I'm doing. Why do we need a separate mask? Why can't we just use the device dma_mask? James