Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:20:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Bryan Liesner <bleez@comcast.net> To: Thomas Quinot <thomas@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Bryan Liesner <bleez@comcast.net> Subject: Re: acd0 vs cd0 (ATAPICAM) Message-ID: <20030924191529.H8200@gravy.homeunix.net> In-Reply-To: <20030924184206.GA43920@melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org> References: <1062861719.2761.35.camel@guillaume.multiweb.ca> <1063763321.776.2.camel@guillaume.multiweb.ca> <20030917070959.L458@gravy.homeunix.net> <1063847031.804.4.camel@guillaume.multiweb.ca> <20030918193255.GB76387@melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org> <20030924184206.GA43920@melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Thomas Quinot wrote: > Le 2003-09-19, Guillaume =E9crivait : > > > Thanks for the patch. cd0 is faster now and ATAPICAM works great. > > Are you going to commit the patch? > > DMA is now enabled for ATAPI/CAM i/o, as of atapi-cam.c rev. 1.26. > Thanks to all who tested and reviewed the change. > No, thank you! dd'ing a full data CD before this fix had top showing at least 50% of the CPU time in interrupt - it's now down to the usual 5% or less. -Bryan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030924191529.H8200>