From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>, Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>,
"zhao, forrest" <forrest.zhao@intel.com>,
Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>,
linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: 2.6.17-rc5-git1: regression: resume from suspend(RAM) fails: libata issue
Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 20:56:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4478F558.3020109@garzik.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605271724560.5623@g5.osdl.org>
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 May 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> Objections? Can everybody confirm that a clean current git tree with just
>> this doesnt' have any huge downsides?
>
> Perhaps more importantly, can anybody imagine any realistic possible
> downsides at all? Both waits have an _eventual_ timeout (although the busy
> wait is pretty damn long), so even the most perverse controller should at
> worst just wait a fairly long time.
>
> And we're doing nothing but reading the status register, so I don't see
> any reasonable breakage.
Well,
* The second wait is pointless, but harmless
* Modern FIS-based controllers (ahci, sata_sil24, SAS HBAs) don't poll
for BSY, ATA is completely packetized and different. But still
harmless, since only ata_piix suspends. The code must go elsewhere,
when other controllers start suspending.
Thus, no objections for 2.6.17.
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-05-28 0:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 100+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-05-26 9:04 [PATCH] Add ata_piix's own resume function zhao, forrest
2006-05-26 23:05 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-26 23:28 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-26 23:38 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-26 23:50 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 6:21 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 6:31 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 6:46 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 6:52 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 3:22 ` 2.6.17-rc5-git1: regression: resume from suspend(RAM) fails: libata issue Mark Lord
2006-05-27 3:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-05-27 3:41 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 4:00 ` [PATCH] " Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 18:23 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-27 18:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-05-27 19:01 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 19:06 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 19:01 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-27 20:45 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 20:58 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 21:11 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 21:17 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 21:20 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 21:23 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-27 21:25 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 21:30 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-27 21:24 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 21:26 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 21:31 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-27 21:32 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 21:33 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 21:34 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 21:37 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-27 21:51 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 21:41 ` Tejun Heo
2006-05-27 21:45 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 21:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-05-27 21:50 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 21:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-05-27 22:11 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 21:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-05-27 21:53 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 22:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-05-27 22:06 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-27 22:11 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 22:13 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 22:15 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 22:15 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-27 22:17 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 22:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-05-27 22:29 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-27 22:36 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 22:48 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-27 22:53 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 22:55 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 23:10 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-28 0:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-05-28 0:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-05-28 0:56 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2006-05-28 0:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-05-28 0:51 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-28 0:53 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-28 0:56 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-28 1:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-05-28 1:03 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-28 1:01 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-28 15:28 ` [PATCH] 2.6.17-rc5: the latest consensus libata resume fix Mark Lord
2006-05-28 17:14 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-28 19:05 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-28 19:18 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-28 20:10 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-28 20:27 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-28 22:28 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-29 1:28 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-29 2:53 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-29 3:18 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-29 3:28 ` zhao, forrest
2006-05-29 2:43 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-27 22:35 ` [PATCH] Re: 2.6.17-rc5-git1: regression: resume from suspend(RAM) fails: libata issue Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 22:52 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 22:54 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 23:06 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 22:56 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-27 23:03 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 22:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-05-27 22:23 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-27 22:43 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-28 0:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-05-27 18:54 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 19:08 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-27 19:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 19:24 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-27 20:24 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 6:29 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 6:36 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 7:01 ` Jens Axboe
2006-05-27 7:06 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 18:46 ` Mark Lord
2006-05-27 3:35 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-05-27 6:20 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4478F558.3020109@garzik.org \
--to=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=forrest.zhao@intel.com \
--cc=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=liml@rtr.ca \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.