[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805291102370.2958@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 11:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RESEND: [PATCH] libata-sff: Fix oops reported in kerneloops.org
for pnp devices with no ctl
On Thu, 29 May 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > It may be that you meant to make it an "else if" case, ie if there was no
> > IO-read, then you do a ndelay(400) as a last desperate case, but that's not
> > how your ata_sdd_sync() is actually written.
>
> The double-ndelay is definitely wrong, but we do need one. Technically it
> should -only- be a 400ns delay, but we also have a register read in there to
> make sure any posted writes are flushed.
Well, but the "read + delay" is already in ata_sdd_pause().
So it's "ata_sdd_sync()" that I think is bogus. Based on its name alone,
it shouldn't have a delay in it (except, as mentioned, possibly for the
fallback case where no port can be used for reading).
Linus
--
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