lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.078 / U:2.776 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site