[Now really. Sorry for the spam.]
Am 31.05.22 um 18:21 schrieb Paul Menzel:
[Cc: -Nehal-bakulchandra (undeliverable)]
Am 31.05.22 um 18:18 schrieb Paul Menzel:
Dear Damien,
Am 01.04.22 um 09:23 schrieb Damien Le Moal:
On 4/1/22 14:18, Paul Menzel wrote:
[…]
Am 01.04.22 um 01:04 schrieb Damien Le Moal:
On 3/31/22 23:42, Paul Menzel wrote:
Am 23.03.22 um 09:36 schrieb Paul Menzel:
Am 23.03.22 um 09:24 schrieb Damien Le Moal:
On 3/23/22 15:55, Paul Menzel wrote:
Am 23.03.22 um 06:01 schrieb Damien Le Moal:
On 3/22/22 06:51, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 16:25
[…]
I seem to recall that we were talking about trying to drop the
debounce delay for everything, weren't we?
So perhaps it would be right to add a 4th patch in the series
to do
just that. Then If this turns out to be problematic for
anything other than the controllers in the series that you
identified as not problematic then that 4th patch can
potentially be reverted alone?
Not quite everything :) But you are right, let's try to switch the
default to no delay. I will be posting patches today for that.
With these patches, your patches are not necessary anymore as the AMD
chipset falls under the default no-delay.
I am all for improving the situation for all devices, but I am unable to
judge the regression potential of changing this, as it affects a lot of
devices. I guess it’d would go through the next tree, and hopefully the
company QA teams can give it a good spin. I hoped that my patches, as I
have tested them, and AMD will hopefully too, could go into the current
merge window.
Yes, correct, the plan is to get the generic series queued as soon
as rc1 so that it can spend plenty of time in linux-next for people
to test. That will hopefully reduce the risk of breaking things in
the field. Same for the default LPM change.
But 5.18 or 5.19? If 5.18, sounds good to me, if 5.19, I’d be great if
my patches go into 5.18 cycle, as they have been tested, and it would
mean the whole change gets tested more widely already.
With the default removal of the debounce delay, your patches addressing
only the AMD adapter are not needed anymore: this adapter will not have a
debounce delay unless the ATA_LFLAG_DEBOUNCE_DELAY flag is set.
Yes, I understand.
The merge window for Linux 5.18 is going to close in three days this
Sunday. It’d be really great if my patches, tested on hardware,
could go into that.
It would be nice if you can test though.
Of course, I am going to that either way.
Series posted with you on CC. Please test !
Thank you. I am going to test it in the coming days, and report
back.
Maybe more people should be put in Cc (Dell, Lenovo, IBM, x86
subsystem) with a request to test this?
Thank you for the patches, which are a big improvement. Let’s hope, you
can re-roll them, so they get into Linux very soon for everyone’s
benefit.
I am waiting for 5.18-rc1 to rebase the patches and re-post them. Given
reviewed-by and tested-by tags, I will queue them for 5.19.
As discussed in the other thread, it’s impossible to be 100 % certain,
it won’t break anything.
Yes, that is why I want to push the patches early in the cycle to be able
to revert if too many problems are reported.
With that in mind, I am not planning to apply your previous patches
for 5.18, as they would conflict and would only end up being churn
since the delay removal by default will undo your changes.
Obviously, I do not agree, as this would give the a little bit more
testing already, if changing the default is a good idea. Also, if the
conflict will be hard to resolve, I happily do it (the patches could
even be reverted on top – git commits are cheap and easy to handle).
The conflict is not hard to resolve. The point is that my patches changing
the default to no debounce delay completely remove the changes of your
patch to do the same for one or some adapters. So adding your patches now
and then my patches on top does not make much sense at all.
If too many problems show up and I end up reverting/removing the patches,
then I will be happy to take your patches for the adapter you tested. Note
that *all* the machines I have tested so far are OK without a debounce
delay too. So we could add them too... And endup with a long list of
adapters that use the default ahci driver without debounce delay. The goal
of changing the default to no delay is to avoid that. So far, the adapters
I have identified that need the delay have their own declaration, so we
only need to add a flag there. Simpler change that listing up adapters
that are OK without the delay.
Anyway, I wrote my piece, but you are the maintainer, so it’s your call
and I stop bothering you.
I just wanted to inquire about the status of your changes? I do not
find them in your `for-5.19` branch. As they should be tested in
linux-next before the merge window opens, if these are not ready yet,
could you please apply my (tested) patches?
Kind regards,
Paul
