linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] libata: Register for dock events when the drive is inside a dock station

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: <20080228183243.GA6146@homac.suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:32:43 +0100
From:	Holger Macht <hmacht@...e.de>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen.c.accardi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: Register for dock events when the drive is
	inside a dock station

On Thu 28. Feb - 16:58:17, Holger Macht wrote:
> On Thu 28. Feb - 22:05:53, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Holger Macht wrote:
> > > On Thu 28. Feb - 18:35:06, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > >> Holger Macht wrote:
> > >>> The hotplug handler is only called if the device is actually inside the
> > >>> dock station. If it is not, nothing will happen. I hope that I got your
> > >>> question right?
> > >> Yes, right.
> > >>
> > >>> However, if this would be helpful, it would be easy to add something like
> > >>> a am_I_on_dock_station?(...) function to the dock driver.
> > >> Hmm.. as long as the event is only delivered when the device is actually
> > >> connected behind dock, I think it's okay.
> > > 
> > > The dock driver also export a is_dock_device(acpi_handle) function, which
> > > could be used to make more fine-grained decisions, but it shouldn't be
> > > needed here.
> > > 
> > >> Does the attached patch fix the previous undock problem?  It now
> > >> explicitly tells libata EH to detach the notified devices on
> > >> EJECT_REQUEST and wait for EH to complete such that control is returned
> > >> to ACPI after all notified devices are actually detached.
> > > 
> > > No it does not. Apparently, it freezes faster (from 1 second down to
> > > immediately). Before, it just froze when someone (in this case HAL) tried
> > > to access the device. The "echo 1 > undock" call does not even return, so
> > > it might have introduced another problem.
> > 
> > The code should be in generally right direction.  Can you be persuaded
> > into tracking down what's going on?
> 
> I had a quick glance with adding some printk's. Now I got a different
> behaviour once. System did not freeze, but were certainly confused. The
> last thing which got printed to messages was exactly before
> spin_lock_irqsave(ap->lock, flags); at the beginning of ata_acpi_handle_hotplug(...)
> 
> The printk immediately after this call didn't come through anymore (with
> being able to use the system for a short time afterwards).

Ok, it seems that there is something broken somewhere else in
2.6.25.rc3. Not sure at all if it's your patch freezing the machine. I'll
give 2.6.24.3 a try...

Regards,
	Holger
--
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/