Re: libata bridge limits

[Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jens Axboe wrote:
> Given that this problem should be going away and that it only really
> matters on very select devices (like this SSD), I think we should just
> add a quick white list for the bridge limits.

Yeah, it sucks that up & coming SSDs are still using PATA-SATA bridges.
 The expectation when adding the wildcard limitation was that those P/S
bridges are not gonna be around for too long and the limit is most
likely not be an actual problem.  Oh well...

> Below is a quick'n dirty for that...
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> index 79e3a8e..fe8033a 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> @@ -2097,9 +2097,70 @@ retry:
>  	return rc;
>  }
>  
> +struct ata_blacklist_entry {
> +	const char *model_num;
> +	const char *model_rev;
> +	unsigned long horkage;
> +};
> +
> +static const struct ata_blacklist_entry ata_bridge_whitelist[] = {
> +	/*
> +	 * The following devices sit behind a bridge, but don't need
> +	 * transfer rate or size limits applied.
> +	 */
> +	{ "Mtron", },
> +
> +	/* End Marker */
> +	{ }
> +};

Any reason this can't be part of the existing blacklist?  It already
supports wildcard matching and all.

Thanks.

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