On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 06:42:46AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 18 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote: >>> Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> That should work as well. WRT ata_sg_is_last(), if we go ahead with my >>>> recent sg chaining updates, we can keep the test as it would be a single >>>> conditional and not require any looping. >>>> Let me know when you have tested this! >>> The patch I attached to the last email got both sata_mv test boxes >>> working reliably (so far). >>> >>> I worked up a patch that kills ata_sg_is_last() (plus the >>> max_phys_segments sata_mv fix), see attached. I'm thinking this is what >>> I like to see in upstream. >> Great! >>> Of course, this doesn't explain why ata_sg_is_last() was broken, but >>> since it's working _and_ slightly more efficient, I don't really care :) >> Tomo and I agreed to kill sg_last() a few days ago anyways, so this is >> perfectly fine with me. > > Yep, the [attached] patch that kills ata_sg_is_last() is working here on > both machines that were previously croaking. > > It would be nice to get pdc_adma, sata_sil24 and ipr it-works test done, > but IMO the patch is pretty straightforward and should be OK.
Tested-by: Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Looks ok on SATA_SIL24 and SATA_MV here on PPC (together with Jens' latest patch). Both barfed before. Thanks! -Olof - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/