John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday 03 September 2009 3:45:07 pm Ivan Voras wrote: >> But ciss doesn't reference it at all so either it deviously assumes it >> or is independent of it. > > Actually, it may be much worse, it may be that the author of ciss(4) new that > ciss(4)'s largest supported I/O size was larger than 128k so they didn't > bother handling the limit at all giving the false impression the hardware has > no limit.
In cases of ATA and CAM infrastructures it was is so, that if driver does not sets max_iosize or maxio respectively, it uses DFLTPHYS. So problem is only about non-ATA/CAM RAIDs or cases where wrong value could be specified explicitly. ciss(4) driver was explicitly limited to 64K, until somebody could review it's capabilities. -- Alexander Motin _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
