From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: waits up to 10 microseconds for early irq problem Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:13:21 -0500 Message-ID: <456C8A51.3000605@garzik.org> References: <200611180759.34622.t.powa@gmx.de> <20061118002357.564dbb9d.akpm@osdl.org> <455F790C.2030509@garzik.org> <456BDCAC.4060609@tw.ibm.com> <456C4514.9090107@tw.ibm.com> <456C4ACC.1050806@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]:10132 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S936041AbWK1TN1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:13:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <456C4ACC.1050806@rtr.ca> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Lord Cc: albertl@mail.com, Linux IDE , Alan Cox , Tejun Heo , matthieu castet , Tobias Powalowski Mark Lord wrote: > It's only worthwhile if the poll was actually necessary. > My question is, do we really want this overhead in the hot path > on every single ATA interrupt, or should we instead simply blacklist > those devices with the problem? Nod... that's my thinking as well Jeff