linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 2/3] sata

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]

Message-ID: <457689C5.5030201@garzik.org>
Date:	Wed, 06 Dec 2006 04:13:41 -0500
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>
CC:	htejun@...il.com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 2/3] sata_promise: new EH conversion

Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 22:00:42 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void pdc_error_handler(struct ata_port *ap)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct ata_eh_context *ehc = &ap->eh_context;
>>> +	ata_reset_fn_t hardreset;
>>> +
>>> +	/* stop DMA, mask IRQ, don't clobber anything else */
>>> +	ata_eh_freeze_port(ap);
>> Don't freeze port unconditionally.  You'll end up hardresetting on every
>> error.  Just make sure DMA engine is stopped and the controller is in a
>> sane state.  If that fails, then, the port should be frozen.
> 
> I'm looking into this now, but so far it seems only a reset
> (what Promise calls software reset, I don't know if libata
> considers it a soft or hard reset) of the ATA channel will do.
> 
>>> +	hardreset = NULL;
>>> +	if (sata_scr_valid(ap)) {
>>> +		ehc->i.action |= ATA_EH_HARDRESET;
>> Why always force HARDRESET?
> 
> I based that on sata_sil24:
> 
> 	if (sil24_init_port(ap)) {
> 		ata_eh_freeze_port(ap);
> 		ehc->i.action |= ATA_EH_HARDRESET;
> 	}
> 
> I interpreted the ATA_EH_HARDRESET as being required due to
> the ata_eh_freeze_port(), but perhaps it's only there because
> sil24_init_port() returned failure?
> 
> A different issue, but of practical importance, is which
> libata branch I should base the EH conversion on: #upstream
> or #ALL? Andrew Morton's -mm kernels include the ALL patches,
> but they in turn include the promise-sata-pata patches, and
> there is a conflict between the PATA patch and the EH conversion.
> Currently my EH conversion is based on #upstream, and I've ported
> the PATA patch to apply on top of it.

It's a tiered system ;-)

* if at all possible, provide patches against the latest linux-2.6.git

* if there are dependencies in #upstream-fixes or #upstream (i.e. I 
already applied some of your patches), provide patches against 
#upstream-fixes or #upstream

#ALL is a branch that is blown away at will, and is really more of a 
testing and akpm sync point.  Don't worry about conflicts with 
promise-sata-pata, I take care of those when I merge the #ALL branch 
together.

	Jeff



-
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/