On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I don't see a reliable way to fix ide_abort() - once the request/command >> is started hardware can be already in a state that makes aborting hard if >> not impossible. > > It depends on the ATA version what you do but you end up doing a reset > sequence without waiting for the existing command to finish if your drive > is too new to have IDLE IMMEDIATE. What you can't do is wait for the > command to finish before issuing a reset because it may never finish. > > I don't see why you think it's "hard". We have timeout handlers for many > commands and those reset/abort just fine. They are different beasts from user-space initiated abort operation which can happen in any moment (timeout handlers explicetely know what state software/hardware is supposed to be currently in) and is in no way synchronized with the current request/command processing. It may be possible to fix it but it will be really hard to get it right and I don't think it is worth the pain for broken-by-design hack in an odd ioctl workarounding shortcomings in core code error recovery (which should be fixed instead, if is not fixed already). Thanks, Bart -- 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
