On 12 August 2016 at 21:42, Sergei Shtylyov
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/12/2016 02:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> From: Tom Yan <[email protected]>
>>
>> Currently we use dev->max_sectors to set max_hw_sectors, which
>> is actually supposed to be a host controller limit (that get set
>
>
> Gets.
>
>
Thanks, but I read too late. I'll try to bare in mind to correct that
if I'll need to send a v3 or so.
>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
>> index be9c76c..4e2d8e7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
>> @@ -1204,14 +1204,26 @@ static int ata_scsi_dev_config(struct scsi_device
>> *sdev,
>> if (!ata_id_has_unload(dev->id))
>> dev->flags |= ATA_DFLAG_NO_UNLOAD;
>>
>> - /* configure max sectors */
>> - blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(q, dev->max_sectors);
>> -
>> if (dev->class == ATA_DEV_ATAPI) {
>> void *buf;
>>
>> sdev->sector_size = ATA_SECT_SIZE;
>>
>> + /*
>> + * We are setting the limit here merely because CD/DVD
>> device does not
>> + * have Block Limits VPD.
>> + *
>> + * Supposedly dev->max_sectors should be left shifted by
>> + * (ilog2(sdev->sector_size) - 9). But since ATAPI class
>> device has a
>> + * static logical sector size of 512 (ATA_SECT_SIZE), the
>> shift became
>> + * unnecessary.
>> + */
>> + q->limits.max_dev_sectors = dev->max_sectors;
>> + /* Make max_dev_sectors effective by adjusting max_sectors
>> accordingly,
>> + while leave max_hw_sectors, which is supposed to be
>> host controller
>> + limit, untouched. */
>
>
> Why 2 different comment styles? The previous comment's style is actually
> preferred in the kernel.
>
I just tried to follow the styles of the existing comments. Apparently
the first style is used for multi-paragraph comments, while the other
one is used for single-paragraph one.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
