Re: 2.6.27.6 question: ata_sff_hsm_move: ata15 (why always ata15)?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Alan Cox wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:14:01 +0900
Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:22:58 -0600
Robert Hancock <hancockr@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Justin Piszcz wrote:
I am trying to find out what the root cause of this error/problem is:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462425
The problem is that people assume that timeouts with DRDY like that bug refers to must be the same problem when it is often not
The first stopping point is to apply the DRQ drain patch I sent to the
list some time ago and is hopefully lined up for 2.6.29. After that point
you can begin to look at the remaining cases, until then its hardly worth
it.
Is it really?  For many SATA controllers, DRQ draining isn't really
necessary.  PATA might be a completely different story tho.

It seems to be needed for various devices and some controllers. Given we
don't know which it seems to be the sensible starting point for almost any
failure involving a DRQ being left on. It won't fix them all but it is
the one case that can easily be eliminated.
..

Well ata_piix for starters.  Verified here by me.

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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux