linux-kernel - RE: [GIT PULL] block bits for 2.6.29-rc5

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: <0F5B06BAB751E047AB5C87D1F77A77885CA670E82F@GVW0547EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date:	Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:51:52 +0000
From:	"Miller, Mike (OS Dev)" <Mike.Miller@...com>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"coldwell@...hat.com" <coldwell@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [GIT PULL] block bits for 2.6.29-rc5

Jens wrote:

> > > Perhaps we should shrink it to something a little more 
> tolerable and 
> > > put it in the noop loop instead. 30 seconds is insane...
> > 
> > Some of these controllers do take a long time to recover from the 
> > reset because the firmware has to re-initialize. The firmware guys 
> > claim that's only a few seconds but that's not true.
> > 
> > Granted, the 5i is old as dirt. Don't know how many are still out 
> > there running newer kernels.
> 
> So a small improvement would be to do that delay only for 5i. 
> Or how about just being a little more relaxed, ala the below? 
> It's still 30 seconds in total, but that's now worst case. 
> Will the 5i crap itself if we attempt to talk to it too soon?
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/block/cciss.c b/drivers/block/cciss.c 
> index d2cb67b..b5a0611 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/cciss.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/cciss.c
> @@ -3611,11 +3611,15 @@ static int __devinit 
> cciss_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>  		schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(30*HZ);
>  
>  		/* Now try to get the controller to respond to 
> a no-op */
> -		for (i=0; i<12; i++) {
> +		for (i=0; i<30; i++) {
>  			if (cciss_noop(pdev) == 0)
>  				break;
> -			else
> -				printk("cciss: no-op 
> failed%s\n", (i < 11 ? "; re-trying" : ""));
> +
> +			schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(HZ);
> +		}
> +		if (i == 30) {
> +			printk(KERN_ERR "cciss: controller 
> seems dead\n");
> +			return -EBUSY;
>  		}
>  	}

The controller won't crap the bed, it will just ignore any requests until it becomes ready. I don't see any problem with this change.

Reviewed-by: Mike Miller <mike.miller@...com>

-- mikem--
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/