On Tue, 29 May 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Aieee, so the drive doesn't like the new SRST sequence.
It would appear that the old code largely ignored the SRST error entirely,
no?
If we *used* to do (in ata_bus_post_reset()):
if (dev0)
ata_busy_sleep(ap, ATA_TMOUT_BOOT_QUICK, ATA_TMOUT_BOOT);
and you changed that to actually care about the return value:
if (dev0) {
rc = ata_wait_ready(ap, deadline);
if (rc && rc != -ENODEV)
return rc;
}
(in _two_ places). That change also changed the same "post_reset" handling
in a totally _different_ way: it used to do ata_busy_sleep() twice, now it
still does it twice, but it does it with the same "timeout" value, so if
the first one times out, then the second one won't be given any timeout AT
ALL!
And to make matters worse: the first timeout seems to be for ANOTHER PORT
ENTIRELY! So you seem to break port 1 even if the timeout happened on port
0, as far as I can read that sequence.
So I think your ata_bus_post_reset() changes are rather suspect. The fact
that you don't change the timeout, and use the same deadline for two
different ports (and for multiple commands to the same port, afaik), seems
rather suspect. The old code also didn't care about failures in certain
phases of the reset sequence, and it appears that it did so for good
reason.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
