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  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]
Date:	Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:45:03 +0100
From:	Philippe De Muyter <>
To:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ide] : Increase WAIT_DRQ to support slow CF cards

Hi David,

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 06:43:18PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Robert Hancock <>
> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:40:03 -0600
> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:19 PM, David Miller <> wrote:
> >> Meanwhile we should provide a way for things to work, and
> >> realistically the only way to do that currently is to bump the
> >> WAIT_DRQ value to some large number.
> >>
> >> And that's exactly the kind of patch I'm willing to accept for this.
> > 
> > I agree, it's sub-optimal but it helps.. if the user wants better
> > behavior they should a) fix it so that the card isn't using PIO, at
> > least if it supports DMA and b) not use drivers/ide..

Strangely enough, I also had no timeout problem if I started my kernel with
'ide=nodma', instead of increasing WAIT_DRQ.  So I surmise that WAIT_DRQ
is used in the dma case.

> Philippe's patch that started this thread uses "3 * HZ / 10"
> which isn't large enough for the SSD cases.  Can someone please
> post a patch that uses a large enough value?

How big a timeout do you want/accept ? Mark Lord wrote about SSD's in the mail
referred by Robert Hancock :
	It should probably be at least 500msec or more now.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists