[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [git patches] libata updates for 2.6.34
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Jeff Garzik <> wrote:
> On 03/15/2010 03:33 AM, Zeno Davatz wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Jeff Garzik<>  wrote:
>>> On 03/09/2010 11:26 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>>> Hello, Linus, Jeff.
>>>> On 03/10/2010 07:12 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>>> Coincedentally, it looks like someone else just reported the same
>>>>> problem, with 2.6.34-rc1.
>>>>> It definitely sounds like a race.  READ DMA is a DMA command as the
>>>>> name
>>>>> implies, so that eliminates the possibility of polling-related paths in
>>>>> ata_sff_interrupt (libata-sff.c).
>>>>> I'll flip some of my machines to the icky slow boring piix mode, rather
>>>>> than sexy AHCI mode :) to see if I can reproduce.  I have had a feeling
>>>>> that we needed a more sophisticated IRQ handling setup, this may be
>>>>> what
>>>>> was needed.  Lost interrupt recovery should occur faster than 30
>>>>> seconds
>>>>> in any case, and should not require a hard reset if the hardware
>>>>> functions just fine outside of the lost-interrupt / race that just
>>>>> occurred.
>>>> Yeap, there is a race condition with clearing which I don't think we
>>>> can solve completely but with some modification I think we can at
>>>> least cover known failure cases.
>>>> For longer term, I don't think we can solve this by diddling with the
>>>> SFF registers.  The interface is just way too ancient and horrid to
>>>> build anything reliable on top of.  I'm planning on implementing
>>>> smarter IRQ storm handling and stepped timeouts for ATA commands.
>>> A tester on this bug
>>> seemed to find success with the patch.
>> Thanks for the Update!
>> I will wait some more and then test rc-2.
> Can you test the patch, please?

Sure. I done:

/usr/src/linux> sudo patch -p1 < teo
patching file drivers/ata/libata-sff.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 1667.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 1700.
Hunk #3 FAILED at 1718.
Hunk #4 FAILED at 1770.
Hunk #5 FAILED at 1792.
Hunk #6 FAILED at 1801.
Hunk #7 FAILED at 1818.
7 out of 7 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file drivers/ata/libata-sff.c.rej

Is that the expected outcome? Can I ignore the "failed" output?

Now I guess I still need to do "make", lilo and reboot.

Let me know.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-15 14:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean