Re: [PATCHSET #upstream-fixes] libata: update HPA handling
Tejun Heo wrote: Tejun Heo wrote: Jeff Garzik wrote: Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, The current HPA handling implementation isn't robust enough and causes regressions on several cases. This patchset contains HPA handling update. * blacklist devices which puke on READ_NATIVE_MAX * proper/better error handling - in most cases, HPA failure won't result in detection failure * re-read IDENTIFY data after resizing * more concise messages Tested by setting up HPA area manually. This is a bit big for 2.6.23-rc though :/ Agreed. We can probably just get away with ATA_HORKAGE_BROKEN_HPA patch for 2.6.23-rc but if we hit a device which is broken but isn't listed, libata will fail to detect the device, which is a pretty serious regression. PING. Do you want me to separate out the blacklist patch for #upstream-fixes and commit HPA error handling reimplementation only into #upstream? Works for me. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-ide in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCHSET #upstream-fixes] libata: update HPA handling
Tejun Heo wrote: Jeff Garzik wrote: Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, The current HPA handling implementation isn't robust enough and causes regressions on several cases. This patchset contains HPA handling update. * blacklist devices which puke on READ_NATIVE_MAX * proper/better error handling - in most cases, HPA failure won't result in detection failure * re-read IDENTIFY data after resizing * more concise messages Tested by setting up HPA area manually. This is a bit big for 2.6.23-rc though :/ Agreed. We can probably just get away with ATA_HORKAGE_BROKEN_HPA patch for 2.6.23-rc but if we hit a device which is broken but isn't listed, libata will fail to detect the device, which is a pretty serious regression. PING. Do you want me to separate out the blacklist patch for #upstream-fixes and commit HPA error handling reimplementation only into #upstream? -- tejun - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-ide in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCHSET #upstream-fixes] libata: update HPA handling
Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, The current HPA handling implementation isn't robust enough and causes regressions on several cases. This patchset contains HPA handling update. * blacklist devices which puke on READ_NATIVE_MAX * proper/better error handling - in most cases, HPA failure won't result in detection failure * re-read IDENTIFY data after resizing * more concise messages Tested by setting up HPA area manually. This is a bit big for 2.6.23-rc though :/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-ide in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCHSET #upstream-fixes] libata: update HPA handling
Jeff Garzik wrote: Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, The current HPA handling implementation isn't robust enough and causes regressions on several cases. This patchset contains HPA handling update. * blacklist devices which puke on READ_NATIVE_MAX * proper/better error handling - in most cases, HPA failure won't result in detection failure * re-read IDENTIFY data after resizing * more concise messages Tested by setting up HPA area manually. This is a bit big for 2.6.23-rc though :/ Agreed. We can probably just get away with ATA_HORKAGE_BROKEN_HPA patch for 2.6.23-rc but if we hit a device which is broken but isn't listed, libata will fail to detect the device, which is a pretty serious regression. -- tejun - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-ide in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
