| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <9107428.nVaRUddl4K@xps13> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:29:38 +0200 From: Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@...il.com> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, stripathi@....com Subject: Re: SATA link power management issues On Tuesday 21 April 2015 11:31:21 Tejun Heo wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:02:12PM +0200, Gabriele Mazzotta wrote: > > On Sunday 22 February 2015 21:53:35 Gabriele Mazzotta wrote: > > > It seems that the following patch prevents errors when the policy is > > > changed. Could anybody explain why? > > The device is generating a spurious PHY event after LPM state change > and the patch is ignoring the event once after state change. It's a > bit too specific. Maybe we should do this timeout-based - e.g. ignore > phy events for 1s after LPM state change. Gabriele, would be > interested in making such changes? Thanks for the explanation and yes, I am interested. Doing some quick tests I found that in some cases it takes 5 or 6 seconds for the first interrupt to arrive, so I'd have to use a quite long interval to completely prevent errors. I am wondering if it would be better using my original solution (i.e. ignore first event), but make it device specific given that it might make no sense on other systems and seems to be more reliable than the time-based one. Gabriele -- 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