Tejun Heo wrote:
Petr Vandrovec wrote:diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c index adfae9d..fbca8d8 100644 --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c @@ -3803,6 +3803,7 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry ata_device_blacklist [] = { /* Drives which do spurious command completion */ { "HTS541680J9SA00", "SB2IC7EP", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, }, { "HTS541612J9SA00", "SBDIC7JP", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, }, + { "Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00", "SB4OC70P", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, }, { "WDC WD740ADFD-00NLR1", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },/* Devices with NCQ limits */Is that the right ID string? Strange that that one has Hitachi at the front and the others don't..Yeah, I realized that and asked Enrico about it. :-)I think that "new" one is correct, while old ones are incorrect (unless it uses strstr()) - all my Hitachis claim to be Hitachis - like this one (which seems to work fine with NCQ): gwy:~# hdparm -i /dev/sda /dev/sda: Model=Hitachi HDT725032VLA380 , FwRev=V54OA52A, SerialNo= VFA200R208LH5J Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }Hmmm... The last one (HTS541612J9SA00) is taken directly from hdparm output, and I think I verified the patch with the reporter. Hmm... Can anyone verify these module strings?
Could well be that they've started attaching Hitachi to the ID strings now.. In the past it hasn't seemed to have been Hitachi's (and IBM's before that) practice to have it there, but maybe they see the advantage of being able to figure out who made the drive now :-)
-- Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada To email, remove "nospam" from [email protected] Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/ - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
- From: Petr Vandrovec <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
- References:
- Re: hsm violation
- From: Robert Hancock <[email protected]>
- Re: hsm violation
- From: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
- From: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
- From: Robert Hancock <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
- From: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
- From: Petr Vandrovec <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
- From: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
- Re: hsm violation
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH][RFC] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
- Index(es):