linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] libata: fallback to the other IDENTIFY on device error

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: <20070507173401.GA9229@electro-mechanical.com>
Date:	Mon, 7 May 2007 13:34:01 -0400
From:	William Thompson <wt@...ctro-mechanical.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>, Mark Lord <liml@....ca>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	albertcc@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: fallback to the other IDENTIFY on device error

On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 06:42:26PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> It seems the world isn't as frank as we thought and some devices lie
> about who they are.  Fallback to the other IDENTIFY if IDENTIFY fails
> with device error.  As this is the strategy used by IDE for a long
> time, it shouldn't cause too much problem.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
> Cc: William Thompson <wt@...ctro-mechanical.com>
> ---
> Willam, please verify this fixes your problem.  Jeff, after all, we
> seem to need this.  :-(

Seems that I have a different version than you do.  See below.

> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> index ca67484..f543109 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> @@ -1652,7 +1652,7 @@ int ata_dev_read_id(struct ata_device *d
>  	struct ata_taskfile tf;
>  	unsigned int err_mask = 0;
>  	const char *reason;
> -	int tried_spinup = 0;
> +	int may_fallback = 1, tried_spinup = 0;
>  	int rc;

My version doesn't have "int tried_spinup = 0;" in it at all.  I did find
where const char *reason; is (line 1455)

I'm using 2.6.20

I probably won't use 2.6.21 due to some of the problems I read about on the
kernel list.

I'll manually add this patch to mine and see how far I get.
-
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/