[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49375A7F.10407@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:20:15 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@....linux.org.uk>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Chuck Wolber <chuckw@...ntumlinux.com>,
Chris Wedgwood <reviews@...cw.f00f.org>,
Michael Krufky <mkrufky@...uxtv.org>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
Domenico Andreoli <cavokz@...il.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Rodrigo Rubira Branco <rbranco@...checkpoint.com>,
Jake Edge <jake@....net>, Eugene Teo <eteo@...hat.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 067/104] libata: improve phantom device detection
> 2.6.27-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
>
> ------------------
> From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
>
> commit 6a6b97d360702b98c02c7fca4c4e088dcf3a2985 upstream.
>
> Currently libata uses four methods to detect device presence.
>
> 1. PHY status if available.
> 2. TF register R/W test (only promotes presence, never demotes)
> 3. device signature after reset
> 4. IDENTIFY failure detection in SFF state machine
>
> Combination of the above works well in most cases but recently there
> have been a few reports where a phantom device causes unnecessary
> delay during probe. In both cases, PHY status wasn't available. In
> one case, it passed #2 and #3 and failed IDENTIFY with ATA_ERR which
> didn't qualify as #4. The other failed #2 but as it passed #3 and #4,
> it still caused failure.
>
> In both cases, phantom device reported diagnostic failure, so these
> cases can be safely worked around by considering any !ATA_DRQ IDENTIFY
> failure as NODEV_HINT if diagnostic failure is set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Alan thinks this patch could cause regression. Given that we're
nearing the end of 2.6.28-rc cycles, I don't think it's critical to
include this into 2.6.27-stable or at least it can wait a bit more.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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