Re: [PATCH] ide: Cap LBA28 capacity announcement to 2^28-1

2021-10-20 Thread Kevin Wolf
Am 06.10.2021 um 01:57 hat Samuel Thibault geschrieben: > Ping? > > Samuel Thibault, le mar. 24 août 2021 12:43:44 +0200, a ecrit: > > The LBA28 capacity (at offsets 60/61 of identification) is supposed to > > express the maximum size supported by LBA28 commands. If the device is > > larger than t

Re: [PATCH] ide: Cap LBA28 capacity announcement to 2^28-1

2021-10-05 Thread Samuel Thibault
Ping? Samuel Thibault, le mar. 24 août 2021 12:43:44 +0200, a ecrit: > The LBA28 capacity (at offsets 60/61 of identification) is supposed to > express the maximum size supported by LBA28 commands. If the device is > larger than this, we have to cap it to 2^28-1. > > At least NetBSD happens to be

Re: [PATCH] ide: Cap LBA28 capacity announcement to 2^28-1

2021-09-05 Thread Samuel Thibault
Ping? Samuel Thibault, le mar. 24 août 2021 12:43:44 +0200, a ecrit: > The LBA28 capacity (at offsets 60/61 of identification) is supposed to > express the maximum size supported by LBA28 commands. If the device is > larger than this, we have to cap it to 2^28-1. > > At least NetBSD happens to be

[PATCH] ide: Cap LBA28 capacity announcement to 2^28-1

2021-08-24 Thread Samuel Thibault
The LBA28 capacity (at offsets 60/61 of identification) is supposed to express the maximum size supported by LBA28 commands. If the device is larger than this, we have to cap it to 2^28-1. At least NetBSD happens to be using this value to determine whether to use LBA28 or LBA48 for its commands, u