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. :-) -- tejun - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html