Hi David, On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 06:43:18PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:40:03 -0600 > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:19 PM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Meanwhile we should provide a way for things to work, and > >> realistically the only way to do that currently is to bump the > >> WAIT_DRQ value to some large number. > >> > >> And that's exactly the kind of patch I'm willing to accept for this. > > > > I agree, it's sub-optimal but it helps.. if the user wants better > > behavior they should a) fix it so that the card isn't using PIO, at > > least if it supports DMA and b) not use drivers/ide.. Strangely enough, I also had no timeout problem if I started my kernel with 'ide=nodma', instead of increasing WAIT_DRQ. So I surmise that WAIT_DRQ is used in the dma case. > > Philippe's patch that started this thread uses "3 * HZ / 10" > which isn't large enough for the SSD cases. Can someone please > post a patch that uses a large enough value? How big a timeout do you want/accept ? Mark Lord wrote about SSD's in the mail referred by Robert Hancock : It should probably be at least 500msec or more now. Philippe -- 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
