linux-kernel - RE: [GIT PULL] block bits for 2.6.29-rc5

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:00:44 +0000
From:	"Miller, Mike (OS Dev)" <Mike.Miller@...com>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"coldwell@...hat.com" <coldwell@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [GIT PULL] block bits for 2.6.29-rc5

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jens Axboe [mailto:jens.axboe@...cle.com] 
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 5:10 AM
> To: Miller, Mike (OS Dev)
> Cc: Andrew Morton; torvalds@...ux-foundation.org; 
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; coldwell@...hat.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.
> --
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/