[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110616075114.GH8141@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:51:14 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ibm.com>
Cc: Brian King <brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, jgarzik@...ox.com,
mbizon@...ebox.fr, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
wayneb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: libata/ipr/powerpc: regression between 2.6.39-rc4 and 2.6.39-rc5
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 04:34:17PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > That looks like the right thing to do. For ipr's usage of
> > libata, we don't have the concept of a port frozen state, so this flag
> > should really never get set. The alternate way to fix this would be to
> > only set ATA_PFLAG_FROZEN in ata_port_alloc if ap->ops->error_handler
> > is not NULL.
>
> It seemed like ipr is as you say, but I wasn't sure if it was
> appropriate to make the change above in the common libata-scis code or
> not. I don't want to break some other device on accident.
>
> Also, I tried your suggestion, but I don't think that can happen in
> ata_port_alloc? ata_port_alloc is allocated ap itself, and it seems like
> ap->ops typically gets set only after ata_port_alloc returns?
Maybe we can test error_handler in ata_sas_port_start()?
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