From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik 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 Message-ID: <4478F558.3020109@garzik.org> References: <200605272245.30108.axboe@suse.de> <4478D2B4.2000500@rtr.ca> <20060527223607.GE364@suse.de> <200605271848.53680.liml@rtr.ca> <20060527225316.GA1075@suse.de> <4478DC67.6050800@rtr.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:61847 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965052AbWE1A5B (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 May 2006 20:57:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Mark Lord , Jens Axboe , "zhao, forrest" , Tejun Heo , linux-ide@vger.kernel.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