Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] libata-scsi: Cap ata_device->max_sectors according to shost->max_sectors
On 6/29/22 16:43, John Garry wrote: > On 29/06/2022 06:58, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> On 6/29/22 14:40, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 12:33:58PM +0100, John Garry wrote: Well Christoph originally offered to take this series via the dma-mapping tree. @Christoph, is that still ok with you? If so, would you rather I send this libata patch separately? >>> >>> The offer still stands, and I don't really care where the libata >>> patch is routed. Just tell me what you prefer. > > Cheers. > >> >> If it is 100% independent from the other patches, I can take it. >> Otherwise, feel free to take it ! >> > > I'll just keep the all together - it's easier in case I need to change > anything. Works for me. > > Thanks! -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research ___ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] libata-scsi: Cap ata_device->max_sectors according to shost->max_sectors
On 29/06/2022 06:58, Damien Le Moal wrote: On 6/29/22 14:40, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 12:33:58PM +0100, John Garry wrote: Well Christoph originally offered to take this series via the dma-mapping tree. @Christoph, is that still ok with you? If so, would you rather I send this libata patch separately? The offer still stands, and I don't really care where the libata patch is routed. Just tell me what you prefer. Cheers. If it is 100% independent from the other patches, I can take it. Otherwise, feel free to take it ! I'll just keep the all together - it's easier in case I need to change anything. Thanks! ___ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] libata-scsi: Cap ata_device->max_sectors according to shost->max_sectors
On 6/29/22 14:40, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 12:33:58PM +0100, John Garry wrote: >> Well Christoph originally offered to take this series via the dma-mapping >> tree. >> >> @Christoph, is that still ok with you? If so, would you rather I send this >> libata patch separately? > > The offer still stands, and I don't really care where the libata > patch is routed. Just tell me what you prefer. If it is 100% independent from the other patches, I can take it. Otherwise, feel free to take it ! -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research ___ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] libata-scsi: Cap ata_device->max_sectors according to shost->max_sectors
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 12:33:58PM +0100, John Garry wrote: > Well Christoph originally offered to take this series via the dma-mapping > tree. > > @Christoph, is that still ok with you? If so, would you rather I send this > libata patch separately? The offer still stands, and I don't really care where the libata patch is routed. Just tell me what you prefer. ___ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] libata-scsi: Cap ata_device->max_sectors according to shost->max_sectors
On 28/06/2022 10:14, Damien Le Moal wrote: BTW, this patch has no real dependency on the rest of the series, so could be taken separately if you prefer. Sure, you can send it separately. Adding it through the scsi tree is fine too. Well Christoph originally offered to take this series via the dma-mapping tree. @Christoph, is that still ok with you? If so, would you rather I send this libata patch separately? Thanks, john ___ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] libata-scsi: Cap ata_device->max_sectors according to shost->max_sectors
On 6/28/22 16:54, John Garry wrote: > On 28/06/2022 00:24, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> On 6/28/22 00:25, John Garry wrote: >>> ATA devices (struct ata_device) have a max_sectors field which is >>> configured internally in libata. This is then used to (re)configure the >>> associated sdev request queue max_sectors value from how it is earlier set >>> in __scsi_init_queue(). In __scsi_init_queue() the max_sectors value is set >>> according to shost limits, which includes host DMA mapping limits. >>> >>> Cap the ata_device max_sectors according to shost->max_sectors to respect >>> this shost limit. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: John Garry >>> Acked-by: Damien Le Moal >> Nit: please change the patch title to "ata: libata-scsi: Cap ..." >> > > ok, but it's going to be an even longer title :) > > BTW, this patch has no real dependency on the rest of the series, so > could be taken separately if you prefer. Sure, you can send it separately. Adding it through the scsi tree is fine too. > > Thanks, > John -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research ___ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] libata-scsi: Cap ata_device->max_sectors according to shost->max_sectors
On 28/06/2022 00:24, Damien Le Moal wrote: On 6/28/22 00:25, John Garry wrote: ATA devices (struct ata_device) have a max_sectors field which is configured internally in libata. This is then used to (re)configure the associated sdev request queue max_sectors value from how it is earlier set in __scsi_init_queue(). In __scsi_init_queue() the max_sectors value is set according to shost limits, which includes host DMA mapping limits. Cap the ata_device max_sectors according to shost->max_sectors to respect this shost limit. Signed-off-by: John Garry Acked-by: Damien Le Moal Nit: please change the patch title to "ata: libata-scsi: Cap ..." ok, but it's going to be an even longer title :) BTW, this patch has no real dependency on the rest of the series, so could be taken separately if you prefer. Thanks, John ___ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] libata-scsi: Cap ata_device->max_sectors according to shost->max_sectors
On 6/28/22 00:25, John Garry wrote:
> ATA devices (struct ata_device) have a max_sectors field which is
> configured internally in libata. This is then used to (re)configure the
> associated sdev request queue max_sectors value from how it is earlier set
> in __scsi_init_queue(). In __scsi_init_queue() the max_sectors value is set
> according to shost limits, which includes host DMA mapping limits.
>
> Cap the ata_device max_sectors according to shost->max_sectors to respect
> this shost limit.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Garry
> Acked-by: Damien Le Moal
Nit: please change the patch title to "ata: libata-scsi: Cap ..."
> ---
> drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
> index 86dbb1cdfabd..24a43d540d9f 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
> @@ -1060,6 +1060,7 @@ int ata_scsi_dev_config(struct scsi_device *sdev,
> struct ata_device *dev)
> dev->flags |= ATA_DFLAG_NO_UNLOAD;
>
> /* configure max sectors */
> + dev->max_sectors = min(dev->max_sectors, sdev->host->max_sectors);
> blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(q, dev->max_sectors);
>
> if (dev->class == ATA_DEV_ATAPI) {
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
___
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
