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 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.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux