Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:20:26 -0500 | From | Mark Lord <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.27.6 question: ata_sff_hsm_move: ata15 (why always ata15)? |
| |
Alan Cox wrote: > On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:14:01 +0900 > Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote: > >> Alan Cox wrote: >>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:22:58 -0600 >>> Robert Hancock <hancockr@shaw.ca> 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
| |