Re: ISP1760 driver crashes

[Jens Axboe]

On Thu, Nov 20 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:21:25 +0100
> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 19 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > --- usb-2.6.orig/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > > > > +++ usb-2.6/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > > > > @@ -1684,7 +1684,7 @@ static void scsi_request_fn(struct reque
> > > > >  u64 scsi_calculate_bounce_limit(struct Scsi_Host *shost)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >  	struct device *host_dev;
> > > > > -	u64 bounce_limit = 0xffffffff;
> > > > > +	u64 bounce_limit = BLK_BOUNCE_HIGH;
> > > > >  
> > > > >  	if (shost->unchecked_isa_dma)
> > > > >  		return BLK_BOUNCE_ISA;
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The best solution is probably to either provide a "doesn't do highmem"
> > > > in the scsi host template, or provide an appropriate DMA mask for the
> > > > pci device to indicate it through that setting instead.
> > > 
> > > The DMA mask is currently set to NULL.  Is that not appropriate for a 
> > > device that can't do DMA?  If not, then what would be appropriate?
> > 
> > It's changing behaviour. There's no current rule that says if you don't
> > have a dma mask set, we only do PIO (even if such a rule DOES make
> > sense). Additionally, you don't HAVE to bounce for PIO. As I wrote
> > earlier, it's perfectly feasible to use bio kmap'ings to do the
> > transfer.
> > 
> > > Also, is the patch above not correct?
> > 
> > It'll certainly work in the sense that if you don't have a dma_mask set,
> > you only get lowmem pages. Whether the new behaviour is something we
> > want, not sure. Check with James what he thinks, it's his domain.
> 
> We have been used 4GB for long time if dma_mask is zero (I guess we
> use 4GB as kinda the default dma address limit at several places). The
> majority of drivers (such as pci) sets properly dev->dma_mask so the
> patch might not change anything but suddenly changing the
> long-standing rule in an odd way (use BLK_BOUNCE_HIGH if dma_mask is
> zero) doesn't sound a good idea to me.
> 
> Why not calling blk_queue_bounce_limit() in the slave_configure hook?
> I think that it's the common way for SCSI LLDs with odd bounce limit.

Yep, that should indeed work just fine and is preferable to changing
this logic.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/