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.

	Jeff