Messages in this thread | | | From | "Miller, Mike (OS Dev)" <> | Date | Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:00:44 +0000 | Subject | RE: [GIT PULL] block bits for 2.6.29-rc5 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jens Axboe [mailto:jens.axboe@oracle.com] > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 5:10 AM > To: Miller, Mike (OS Dev) > Cc: Andrew Morton; torvalds@linux-foundation.org; > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; coldwell@redhat.com > Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] block bits for 2.6.29-rc5 > > On Fri, Feb 20 2009, Miller, Mike (OS Dev) wrote: > > Jens wrote: > > > > > > > Perhaps we should shrink it to something a little more > > > tolerable and > > > > > put it in the noop loop instead. 30 seconds is insane... > > > > > > > > Some of these controllers do take a long time to > recover from the > > > > reset because the firmware has to re-initialize. The > firmware guys > > > > claim that's only a few seconds but that's not true. > > > > > > > > Granted, the 5i is old as dirt. Don't know how many are > still out > > > > there running newer kernels. > > > > > > So a small improvement would be to do that delay only for 5i. > > > Or how about just being a little more relaxed, ala the below? > > > It's still 30 seconds in total, but that's now worst case. > > > Will the 5i crap itself if we attempt to talk to it too soon? > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/cciss.c b/drivers/block/cciss.c index > > > d2cb67b..b5a0611 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/block/cciss.c > > > +++ b/drivers/block/cciss.c > > > @@ -3611,11 +3611,15 @@ static int __devinit > cciss_init_one(struct > > > pci_dev *pdev, > > > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(30*HZ); > > > > > > /* Now try to get the controller to respond to > a no-op */ > > > - for (i=0; i<12; i++) { > > > + for (i=0; i<30; i++) { > > > if (cciss_noop(pdev) == 0) > > > break; > > > - else > > > - printk("cciss: no-op > > > failed%s\n", (i < 11 ? "; re-trying" : "")); > > > + > > > + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(HZ); > > > + } > > > + if (i == 30) { > > > + printk(KERN_ERR "cciss: controller > > > seems dead\n"); > > > + return -EBUSY; > > > } > > > } > > > > The controller won't crap the bed, it will just ignore any requests > > until it becomes ready. I don't see any problem with this change. > > OK, then it should be safe enough. I've added the patch to > the upstream queue, with your reviewed-by tag. > > -- > Jens Axboe >
Thanks, Jens. >
| |