[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: question: ata_sff_hsm_move: ata15 (why always ata15)?
Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:14:01 +0900
> Tejun Heo <> wrote:
>> Alan Cox wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:22:58 -0600
>>> Robert Hancock <> wrote:
>>>> Justin Piszcz wrote:
>>>>> I am trying to find out what the root cause of this error/problem is:
>>>> 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.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-24 19:21    [W:0.063 / U:3.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site