[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080121172715.0e3e5e4d@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:27:15 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Georgi Chulkov <g.chulkov@...obs-university.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
Mark Lord <liml@....ca>
Subject: Re: ATA device reset, shoud I be concerned?
> I still don't think it's worth the trouble. There's currently only one
> reported device which forgets to raise IRQ on media error. The behavior
Most people wouldn't realise what is going on.
> > Old IDE says it works for PATA. For SATA I can see it might need more
> > care and you might simply not be able to get the info.
>
> Old IDE often locks up the machine hard after timeouts. I'm all for
The code paths are racy - it didn't use to in 2.4 (except for the promise
drain bug)
> gathering more info but benefit vs. risk equation just doesn't look good
> here. Why take risk for a rare device which forgets to raise IRQ on
> media error? If such behavior is wide spread among PATA drives && we
> can verify that TF register access after timeout is safe for PATA
> controllers, sure, but currently we aren't sure about either.
We lose IRQs in lots of other cases. Promise PATA is particularly bad at
forgetting to give us the completion interrupt.
Alan
--
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