Re: [PATCH] libata: always use polling SETXFER

Jeff Garzik wrote: > Tejun Heo wrote: >> So, I don't think the problem exists for SATA in the first place. At >> least there hasn't been any report of it and doing SETXFER by polling >> can handle all the existing cases. We can and probably should deal with >> such SATA devices when and if they c

Re: [PATCH] libata: always use polling SETXFER

Tejun Heo wrote: So, I don't think the problem exists for SATA in the first place. At least there hasn't been any report of it and doing SETXFER by polling can handle all the existing cases. We can and probably should deal with such SATA devices when and if they come up. How are we gonna verif

Re: [PATCH] libata: always use polling SETXFER

> > We are going to have to deal with the HSM issue underlying the need to > do SET FEATURES - XFER MODE polling, and ultimately IDENTIFY DEVICE > polling too. > > This is the main reason why I have resisted applying "[PATCH] libata: > always use polling SETXFER"

Re: [PATCH] libata: always use polling SETXFER

ented as changing data fields in the packet stream. We are going to have to deal with the HSM issue underlying the need to do SET FEATURES - XFER MODE polling, and ultimately IDENTIFY DEVICE polling too. This is the main reason why I have resisted applying "[PATCH] libata: always use polling