Re: 2.6.27.6 question: ata_sff_hsm_move: ata15 (why always ata15)?

[Mark Lord]

Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:14:01 +0900
> Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/