J.A. Magallón wrote:
On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:35:11 -0400, Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
Tejun Heo (12):
libata: improve post-reset device ready test
This commit (78ab88f04f44bed566d51dce0c7cbfeff6449a06) causes a long
boot delay with my onboard Promise controller. It seems like libata
probes for a nonexisting PATA drive...
I also had this patch collected from LKML, that still applies to -git6.
Is it really needed ?
ref: http://marc.info/?l=linux-ide&m=120913178617926&w=2
..
--- upstream/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c 2008-04-30 17:35:36.000000000 -0400
+++ linux/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c 2008-04-30 17:35:45.000000000 -0400
@@ -1312,8 +1312,7 @@
err_mask |= AC_ERR_ATA_BUS;
action |= ATA_EH_RESET;
}
- if (serror &
- (SERR_DATA_RECOVERED | SERR_COMM_RECOVERED | SERR_DATA)) {
+ if (serror & (SERR_DATA_RECOVERED | SERR_DATA)) {
err_mask |= AC_ERR_ATA_BUS;
action |= ATA_EH_RESET;
}
..
The original problem I had, which prompted this patch, eventually was
resolved in other ways. But I do think that a hw-recovered bit in SError
is not a good reason to reset everything.
Tejun suggested that we still want to know about such errors,
and eventually do something if they repeat often enough.
But doing a port/link reset every single time ?
@@ -1924,7 +1923,7 @@
}
if (ehc->i.serror)
- ata_port_printk(ap, KERN_ERR,
+ ata_link_printk(link, KERN_ERR,
"SError: { %s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s}\n",
ehc->i.serror & SERR_DATA_RECOVERED ? "RecovData " : "",
ehc->i.serror & SERR_COMM_RECOVERED ? "RecovComm " : "",
..
That portion of the patch is still a very good idea.
Cheers
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
