[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <483EF25F.7080005@garzik.org>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 14:13:51 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> 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().
Right, that's what I meant by double-ndelay.
> 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).
Agreed,
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists