On Sep 3, 2009, at 2:02 PM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> 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.
You're exactly right. The solution is to do a proper audit and fix
the potential problems, not add yet another 1-off flag that avoids
doing real work. If you want to help, keep in mind that I need help
_generating_ patches, not testing them. I appreciate all of the
testing goodwill out there, but analysis and fixing goodwill is needed
at this phase.
Scott