Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:19:18 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Silicon Image 3112A SATA trouble |
| |
Jens Axboe wrote: > On Sun, Nov 30 2003, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > >>On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 06:10:06PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: >> >> >>>On Sun, Nov 30 2003, Jeff Garzik wrote: >>> >>>>Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sunday 30 of November 2003 17:51, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>Tangent: My non-pessimistic fix will involve submitting a single sector >>>>>>>DMA r/w taskfile manually, then proceeding with the remaining sectors in >>>>>>>another r/w taskfile. This doubles the interrupts on the affected >>>>>>>chipset/drive combos, but still allows large requests. I'm not terribly >>>>>> >>>>>>Or split the request 50/50. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>We can't - hardware will lock up. >>>> >>>>Well, the constraint we must satisfy is >>>> >>>> sector_count % 15 != 1 >>> >>> (sector_count % 15 != 1) && (sector_count != 1) >>> >>>to be more precise :) >> >>I think you wanted to say: >> >> (sector_count % 15 != 1) || (sector_count == 1) > > > Ehm no, I don't think so... To my knowledge, sector_count == 1 is ok. If > not, the hardware would be seriously screwed (ok it is already) beyond > software fixups.
Now that you've kicked my brain into action, yes, sector_count==1 is ok. It's all about limiting the data FIS... and with sector_count==1 there is no worry about the data FIS in this case.
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |