linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sata_nv,ahci: add the ahci legacy mode support to 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: <cfaab6210710182358t4de355f9wd6d605a7b8076ace@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:58:19 +0800
From:	"peer chen" <peerchen@...il.com>
To:	"Jeff Garzik" <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ide <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Kuan Luo" <kluo@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sata_nv,ahci: add the ahci legacy mode support to sata_nv

Ok,I agree to use AHCI driver for our AHCI controllers no matter their
class codes are IDE/RAID/AHCI. But for those new or upcoming AHCI
controller which DIDs are not included in ahci.c and also IDE/RAID
mode being set in BIOS, no driver will be loaded currently, so I hope
the first patch http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/8/93 can be appied for
this case. Any comments?

2007/10/19, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>:
> peer chen wrote:
> > I hope one of the following patches can be merged to 2.6.24.
> > ==========================
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/8/93
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/25/20
>
> Unfortunately I do not feel like this is the right course of action.
>
> Experience from Intel platforms tells us that our users get very unhappy
> when their silicon supports AHCI mode, but they are forced into using a
> less-performant mode.  A popular example is an <unnamed> OEM whose BIOS
> had no method whatsoever for enabling AHCI -- didn't even program the
> PCI BAR -- even though tests showed the AHCI mode worked just fine when
> manually programmed.
>
> AHCI is more likely to provide a /stable/ Serial ATA experience, because
> the silicon deals primarily with sending and receiving FIS's, and not
> much else.  In constrast, experience has shown the legacy IDE interface
> to be a less reliable method of SATA support.  And certainly AHCI is
> much, much faster with less per-command overhead.
>
> Given that AHCI is both faster and more stable, I feel it is the best
> policy to enable AHCI when the hardware supports it, regardless of PCI
> class code (IDE, SATA, or RAID).
>
>
> > Yes, I agree to set the 'swncq' as default for 2.6.24, after all, for
> > our server customers, stability is far more important than the new
> > feature no matter the problem is caused by drive or controller.
>
> Agreed.  Done!
>
>        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/