[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070608143136.GC25649@havoc.gtf.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 10:31:36 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Gregor Jasny <gjasny@...glemail.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Linux v2.6.22-rc3
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:02:24PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I don't think the first one is probable considering BSY is supposed to
> set when SRST is received. This is pretty fundamental in the protocol
> and necessary for the device to work properly as master, so I think this
> is one of few things we can rely upon.
See a URL I posted earlier in this thread. With dumb ATAPI devices we
actually have to wait a bit for BSY to be asserted. Not only at reset,
but also for every command.
> How about limiting nsect/lbal wait duration? Say, 100ms or 500ms? That
> can somewhat ease our paranoia and should show acceptable behavior for
> braindead devices too.
That's quite reasonable.
Jeff
P.S. We can probably reduce the msleep(150) sprinkled about the code to
msleep(100), for the dumb-ATAPI-device wait.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists