Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 May 2003 18:59:25 +0200 (MET DST) | From | Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.5 ide 48-bit usage |
| |
On Thu, 8 May 2003, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Thu, May 08 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 8 May 2003, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > > > Maybe a define or two would help here. When you see drive->addressing > > > and hwif->addressing, you assume that they are used identically. That > > > !hwif->addressing means 48-bit is ok, while !drive->addressing means > > > it's not does not help at all. > > > > Why not just change the names? The current setup clearly is confusing, and > > adding defines doesn't much help. Rename the structure member so that the > > name says what it is, aka "address_mode", and when renaming it you'd go > > through the source anyway and change "!addressing" to something more > > readable like "address_mode == IDE_LBA48" or whatever. > > Might not be a bad idea, drive->address_mode is a heck of a lot more to > the point. I'll do a swipe of this tomorrow, if no one beats me to it.
Good idea.
> > (Anyway, I'll just drop all the 48-bit patches for now, since you've > > totally confused me about which ones are right and what the bugs are ;)
:-)
> I think we can all agree on the last one (attached again, it's short) is > ok. The 'only use 48-bit when needed' can wait until Bart gets the > taskfile infrastructure in place, until then I'll just have to eat the > overhead :)
Okay for me.
btw. Jens, do you have any benchmarks of using 1MiB requests and/or removing 48-bit overhead? -- Bartlomiej
- 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/
| |