Mark Lord wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Mark Lord wrote:
> ..
>>> Super.  And when I add FIS-based-switching PMP support on top of NCQ,
>>> *then* what should it point at?
>> If the controller can do FIS-based switching w/o any other restrictions,
>> ata_std_qc_defer() can just stay.  If there are restrictions, you need
>> to roll your own qc_defer.  sata_sil24 had to.
>> For command-based switching, sata_pmp_qc_defer_cmd_switch() can be used.
> ...
> Super!  You've done a great job with this stuff, Tejun!

Thanks but I can't really say nice things about how sata_sil24's
qc_defer() is implemented or how we generally handle command deferring.
 We really need the control at the higher level - request_queue group.
Oh well... I guess you guys will be talking about it over beer again
soon.  :-)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to