Re: hsm violation

All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed

* Re: hsm violation
       [not found] ` <fa.19XJG1Asdp1zwcWLxolIH6F+5lY@ifi.uio.no>
@ 2007-06-24 19:42   ` Robert Hancock
  2007-06-25  2:12     ` Tejun Heo
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Robert Hancock @ 2007-06-24 19:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: enricoss, linux-kernel, linux-ide, Jeff Garzik, Tejun Heo

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:32:22 +0200 Enrico Sardi <enricoss@tiscali.it> wrote:
>> [   61.176000] ata1.00: exception Emask 0x2 SAct 0x2 SErr 0x0 action 0x2 
>> frozen
>> [   61.176000] ata1.00: (spurious completions during NCQ issue=0x0 
>> SAct=0x2 FIS=005040a1:00000004)

..

> 
> It's not obvious (to me) whether this is a driver bug, a hardware bug,
> expected-normal-behaviour or what - those diagnostics (which we get to
> see distressingly frequently) are pretty obscure.

The spurious completions during NCQ error is indicating that the drive 
has indicated it's completed NCQ command tags which weren't outstanding. 
  It's normally a result of a bad NCQ implementation on the drive. 
Technically we can live with it, but it's rather dangerous (if it 
indicates completions for non-outstanding commands, how do we know it 
doesn't indicate completions for actually outstanding commands that 
aren't actually completed yet..)

-- 
Robert Hancock      Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: hsm violation
  2007-06-24 19:42   ` hsm violation Robert Hancock
@ 2007-06-25  2:12     ` Tejun Heo
  2007-06-25  2:28         ` Tejun Heo
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tejun Heo @ 2007-06-25  2:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Robert Hancock
  Cc: Andrew Morton, enricoss, linux-kernel, linux-ide, Jeff Garzik

Robert Hancock wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:32:22 +0200 Enrico Sardi <enricoss@tiscali.it>
>> wrote:
>>> [   61.176000] ata1.00: exception Emask 0x2 SAct 0x2 SErr 0x0 action
>>> 0x2 frozen
>>> [   61.176000] ata1.00: (spurious completions during NCQ issue=0x0
>>> SAct=0x2 FIS=005040a1:00000004)
>>
>> It's not obvious (to me) whether this is a driver bug, a hardware bug,
>> expected-normal-behaviour or what - those diagnostics (which we get to
>> see distressingly frequently) are pretty obscure.
> 
> The spurious completions during NCQ error is indicating that the drive
> has indicated it's completed NCQ command tags which weren't outstanding.
>  It's normally a result of a bad NCQ implementation on the drive.
> Technically we can live with it, but it's rather dangerous (if it
> indicates completions for non-outstanding commands, how do we know it
> doesn't indicate completions for actually outstanding commands that
> aren't actually completed yet..)

There is a small race window there.  Please consider the following sequence.

1. drive sends SDB FIS with spurious completion in it.
2. block layer issues new r/w command to the drive.  SDB FIS is still in
flight.
3. ata driver issues the command (the pending bit is set prior to
transmitting command FIS).
4. controller completes receiving FIS from #1.  Driver reads the mask
and completes all indicated commands.  If spurious completion in #1
happens to match the slot allocated in #3, the driver just completed a
command which hasn't been issued to the drive yet.

So, it actually is dangerous.  We might even be seeing the real
completion as spurious one (as the command is completed prematurely).

It seems all those HTS541* drives share this problem.  Four of them are
already on the blacklist and the other OS reportedly blacklists three of
them too.  I'll submit a patch to add HTS541616J9SA00.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
  2007-06-25  2:12     ` Tejun Heo
@ 2007-06-25  2:28         ` Tejun Heo
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tejun Heo @ 2007-06-25  2:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: Robert Hancock, Andrew Morton, enricoss, linux-kernel, linux-ide,
	Jeff Garzik

Another member of HTS5416* family doing spurious NCQ completion.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Cc: Enrico Sardi <enricoss@tiscali.it>
---
 drivers/ata/libata-core.c |    1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
index adfae9d..fbca8d8 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
@@ -3803,6 +3803,7 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry ata_device_blacklist [] = {
 	/* Drives which do spurious command completion */
 	{ "HTS541680J9SA00",	"SB2IC7EP",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
 	{ "HTS541612J9SA00",	"SBDIC7JP",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
+	{ "Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00", "SB4OC70P", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
 	{ "WDC WD740ADFD-00NLR1", NULL,		ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
 
 	/* Devices with NCQ limits */

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
@ 2007-06-25  2:28         ` Tejun Heo
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tejun Heo @ 2007-06-25  2:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff Garzik
  Cc: Robert Hancock, Andrew Morton, enricoss, linux-kernel, linux-ide,
	Jeff Garzik

Another member of HTS5416* family doing spurious NCQ completion.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Cc: Enrico Sardi <enricoss@tiscali.it>
---
 drivers/ata/libata-core.c |    1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
index adfae9d..fbca8d8 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
@@ -3803,6 +3803,7 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry ata_device_blacklist [] = {
 	/* Drives which do spurious command completion */
 	{ "HTS541680J9SA00",	"SB2IC7EP",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
 	{ "HTS541612J9SA00",	"SBDIC7JP",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
+	{ "Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00", "SB4OC70P", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
 	{ "WDC WD740ADFD-00NLR1", NULL,		ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
 
 	/* Devices with NCQ limits */

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
  2007-06-25  2:28         ` Tejun Heo
  (?)
@ 2007-06-25  2:39         ` Robert Hancock
  2007-06-25  2:49           ` Tejun Heo
  -1 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Robert Hancock @ 2007-06-25  2:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tejun Heo; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, Andrew Morton, enricoss, linux-kernel, linux-ide

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Another member of HTS5416* family doing spurious NCQ completion.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
> Cc: Enrico Sardi <enricoss@tiscali.it>
> ---
>  drivers/ata/libata-core.c |    1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> index adfae9d..fbca8d8 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> @@ -3803,6 +3803,7 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry ata_device_blacklist [] = {
>  	/* Drives which do spurious command completion */
>  	{ "HTS541680J9SA00",	"SB2IC7EP",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>  	{ "HTS541612J9SA00",	"SBDIC7JP",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
> +	{ "Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00", "SB4OC70P", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>  	{ "WDC WD740ADFD-00NLR1", NULL,		ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>  
>  	/* Devices with NCQ limits */
> 

Is that the right ID string? Strange that that one has Hitachi at the 
front and the others don't..

-- 
Robert Hancock      Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
  2007-06-25  2:39         ` Robert Hancock
@ 2007-06-25  2:49           ` Tejun Heo
  2007-06-25  3:47             ` Petr Vandrovec
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tejun Heo @ 2007-06-25  2:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Robert Hancock
  Cc: Jeff Garzik, Andrew Morton, enricoss, linux-kernel, linux-ide

Robert Hancock wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Another member of HTS5416* family doing spurious NCQ completion.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Enrico Sardi <enricoss@tiscali.it>
>> ---
>>  drivers/ata/libata-core.c |    1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> index adfae9d..fbca8d8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> @@ -3803,6 +3803,7 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry
>> ata_device_blacklist [] = {
>>      /* Drives which do spurious command completion */
>>      { "HTS541680J9SA00",    "SB2IC7EP",    ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>      { "HTS541612J9SA00",    "SBDIC7JP",    ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>> +    { "Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00", "SB4OC70P", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>      { "WDC WD740ADFD-00NLR1", NULL,        ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>  
>>      /* Devices with NCQ limits */
>>
> 
> Is that the right ID string? Strange that that one has Hitachi at the
> front and the others don't..

Yeah, I realized that and asked Enrico about it.  :-)

-- 
tejun

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
  2007-06-25  2:49           ` Tejun Heo
@ 2007-06-25  3:47             ` Petr Vandrovec
  2007-06-25  4:05               ` Tejun Heo
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Petr Vandrovec @ 2007-06-25  3:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tejun Heo
  Cc: Robert Hancock, Jeff Garzik, Andrew Morton, enricoss,
	linux-kernel, linux-ide

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Robert Hancock wrote:
>> Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> Another member of HTS5416* family doing spurious NCQ completion.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Enrico Sardi <enricoss@tiscali.it>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/ata/libata-core.c |    1 +
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>> index adfae9d..fbca8d8 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>> @@ -3803,6 +3803,7 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry
>>> ata_device_blacklist [] = {
>>>      /* Drives which do spurious command completion */
>>>      { "HTS541680J9SA00",    "SB2IC7EP",    ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>      { "HTS541612J9SA00",    "SBDIC7JP",    ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>> +    { "Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00", "SB4OC70P", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>      { "WDC WD740ADFD-00NLR1", NULL,        ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>  
>>>      /* Devices with NCQ limits */
>>>
>> Is that the right ID string? Strange that that one has Hitachi at the
>> front and the others don't..
> 
> Yeah, I realized that and asked Enrico about it.  :-)

I think that "new" one is correct, while old ones are incorrect (unless 
it uses strstr()) - all my Hitachis claim to be Hitachis - like this one 
(which seems to work fine with NCQ):

gwy:~# hdparm -i /dev/sda

/dev/sda:

  Model=Hitachi HDT725032VLA380                 , FwRev=V54OA52A, 
SerialNo=      VFA200R208LH5J
  Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }

								Petr


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
  2007-06-25  3:47             ` Petr Vandrovec
@ 2007-06-25  4:05               ` Tejun Heo
  2007-06-25  4:10                 ` Robert Hancock
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tejun Heo @ 2007-06-25  4:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Petr Vandrovec
  Cc: Robert Hancock, Jeff Garzik, Andrew Morton, enricoss,
	linux-kernel, linux-ide

Petr Vandrovec wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>>> index adfae9d..fbca8d8 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>>> @@ -3803,6 +3803,7 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry
>>>> ata_device_blacklist [] = {
>>>>      /* Drives which do spurious command completion */
>>>>      { "HTS541680J9SA00",    "SB2IC7EP",    ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>>      { "HTS541612J9SA00",    "SBDIC7JP",    ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>> +    { "Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00", "SB4OC70P", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>>      { "WDC WD740ADFD-00NLR1", NULL,        ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>>  
>>>>      /* Devices with NCQ limits */
>>>>
>>> Is that the right ID string? Strange that that one has Hitachi at the
>>> front and the others don't..
>>
>> Yeah, I realized that and asked Enrico about it.  :-)
> 
> I think that "new" one is correct, while old ones are incorrect (unless
> it uses strstr()) - all my Hitachis claim to be Hitachis - like this one
> (which seems to work fine with NCQ):
> 
> gwy:~# hdparm -i /dev/sda
> 
> /dev/sda:
> 
>  Model=Hitachi HDT725032VLA380                 , FwRev=V54OA52A,
> SerialNo=      VFA200R208LH5J
>  Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }

Hmmm... The last one (HTS541612J9SA00) is taken directly from hdparm
output, and I think I verified the patch with the reporter.  Hmm... Can
anyone verify these module strings?

-- 
tejun

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
  2007-06-25  4:05               ` Tejun Heo
@ 2007-06-25  4:10                 ` Robert Hancock
  2007-06-25  4:22                   ` Petr Vandrovec
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Robert Hancock @ 2007-06-25  4:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tejun Heo
  Cc: Petr Vandrovec, Jeff Garzik, Andrew Morton, enricoss,
	linux-kernel, linux-ide

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Petr Vandrovec wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>>>> index adfae9d..fbca8d8 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>>>> @@ -3803,6 +3803,7 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry
>>>>> ata_device_blacklist [] = {
>>>>>      /* Drives which do spurious command completion */
>>>>>      { "HTS541680J9SA00",    "SB2IC7EP",    ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>>>      { "HTS541612J9SA00",    "SBDIC7JP",    ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>>> +    { "Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00", "SB4OC70P", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>>>      { "WDC WD740ADFD-00NLR1", NULL,        ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>>>  
>>>>>      /* Devices with NCQ limits */
>>>>>
>>>> Is that the right ID string? Strange that that one has Hitachi at the
>>>> front and the others don't..
>>> Yeah, I realized that and asked Enrico about it.  :-)
>> I think that "new" one is correct, while old ones are incorrect (unless
>> it uses strstr()) - all my Hitachis claim to be Hitachis - like this one
>> (which seems to work fine with NCQ):
>>
>> gwy:~# hdparm -i /dev/sda
>>
>> /dev/sda:
>>
>>  Model=Hitachi HDT725032VLA380                 , FwRev=V54OA52A,
>> SerialNo=      VFA200R208LH5J
>>  Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
> 
> Hmmm... The last one (HTS541612J9SA00) is taken directly from hdparm
> output, and I think I verified the patch with the reporter.  Hmm... Can
> anyone verify these module strings?

Could well be that they've started attaching Hitachi to the ID strings 
now.. In the past it hasn't seemed to have been Hitachi's (and IBM's 
before that) practice to have it there, but maybe they see the advantage 
of being able to figure out who made the drive now :-)

-- 
Robert Hancock      Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
  2007-06-25  4:10                 ` Robert Hancock
@ 2007-06-25  4:22                   ` Petr Vandrovec
  2007-06-25  4:29                     ` Tejun Heo
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Petr Vandrovec @ 2007-06-25  4:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Robert Hancock
  Cc: Tejun Heo, Jeff Garzik, Andrew Morton, enricoss, linux-kernel,
	linux-ide

Robert Hancock wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Petr Vandrovec wrote:
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>>>>> index adfae9d..fbca8d8 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>>>>>> @@ -3803,6 +3803,7 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry
>>>>>> ata_device_blacklist [] = {
>>>>>>      /* Drives which do spurious command completion */
>>>>>>      { "HTS541680J9SA00",    "SB2IC7EP",    ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>>>>      { "HTS541612J9SA00",    "SBDIC7JP",    ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>>>> +    { "Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00", "SB4OC70P", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>>>>      { "WDC WD740ADFD-00NLR1", NULL,        ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>      /* Devices with NCQ limits */
>>>>>>
>>>>> Is that the right ID string? Strange that that one has Hitachi at the
>>>>> front and the others don't..
>>>> Yeah, I realized that and asked Enrico about it.  :-)
>>> I think that "new" one is correct, while old ones are incorrect (unless
>>> it uses strstr()) - all my Hitachis claim to be Hitachis - like this one
>>> (which seems to work fine with NCQ):
>>>
>>> gwy:~# hdparm -i /dev/sda
>>>
>>> /dev/sda:
>>>
>>>  Model=Hitachi HDT725032VLA380                 , FwRev=V54OA52A,
>>> SerialNo=      VFA200R208LH5J
>>>  Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
>>
>> Hmmm... The last one (HTS541612J9SA00) is taken directly from hdparm
>> output, and I think I verified the patch with the reporter.  Hmm... Can
>> anyone verify these module strings?
> 
> Could well be that they've started attaching Hitachi to the ID strings 
> now.. In the past it hasn't seemed to have been Hitachi's (and IBM's 
> before that) practice to have it there, but maybe they see the advantage 
> of being able to figure out who made the drive now :-)

Perhaps ones sold directly by Hitachi are Hitachi, while ones sold 
through OEMs are no-name?
							Petr

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
  2007-06-25  4:22                   ` Petr Vandrovec
@ 2007-06-25  4:29                     ` Tejun Heo
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tejun Heo @ 2007-06-25  4:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Petr Vandrovec
  Cc: Robert Hancock, Jeff Garzik, Andrew Morton, enricoss,
	linux-kernel, linux-ide

Petr Vandrovec wrote:
>>> Hmmm... The last one (HTS541612J9SA00) is taken directly from hdparm
>>> output, and I think I verified the patch with the reporter.  Hmm... Can
>>> anyone verify these module strings?
>>
>> Could well be that they've started attaching Hitachi to the ID strings
>> now.. In the past it hasn't seemed to have been Hitachi's (and IBM's
>> before that) practice to have it there, but maybe they see the
>> advantage of being able to figure out who made the drive now :-)
> 
> Perhaps ones sold directly by Hitachi are Hitachi, while ones sold
> through OEMs are no-name?

I dunno but I doubt they care that much about the model string but one
way or the other we might have to do pattern matching on HTS541* anyway.

-- 
tejun

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
  2007-06-25  2:28         ` Tejun Heo
  (?)
  (?)
@ 2007-07-02  7:12         ` Tejun Heo
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tejun Heo @ 2007-07-02  7:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tejun Heo
  Cc: Jeff Garzik, Robert Hancock, Andrew Morton, enricoss,
	linux-kernel, linux-ide

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Another member of HTS5416* family doing spurious NCQ completion.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
> Cc: Enrico Sardi <enricoss@tiscali.it>

Jeff, ping.

-- 
tejun

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist
  2007-06-25  2:28         ` Tejun Heo
                           ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  (?)
@ 2007-07-02 14:14         ` Jeff Garzik
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2007-07-02 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tejun Heo
  Cc: Robert Hancock, Andrew Morton, enricoss, linux-kernel, linux-ide

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Another member of HTS5416* family doing spurious NCQ completion.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
> Cc: Enrico Sardi <enricoss@tiscali.it>
> ---
>  drivers/ata/libata-core.c |    1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> index adfae9d..fbca8d8 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> @@ -3803,6 +3803,7 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry ata_device_blacklist [] = {
>  	/* Drives which do spurious command completion */
>  	{ "HTS541680J9SA00",	"SB2IC7EP",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>  	{ "HTS541612J9SA00",	"SBDIC7JP",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
> +	{ "Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00", "SB4OC70P", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
>  	{ "WDC WD740ADFD-00NLR1", NULL,		ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },

applied



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2007-07-02 14:15 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <fa.sspu6LOivd/touNtS2IsMKPqHa0@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found] ` <fa.19XJG1Asdp1zwcWLxolIH6F+5lY@ifi.uio.no>
2007-06-24 19:42   ` hsm violation Robert Hancock
2007-06-25  2:12     ` Tejun Heo
2007-06-25  2:28       ` [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist Tejun Heo
2007-06-25  2:28         ` Tejun Heo
2007-06-25  2:39         ` Robert Hancock
2007-06-25  2:49           ` Tejun Heo
2007-06-25  3:47             ` Petr Vandrovec
2007-06-25  4:05               ` Tejun Heo
2007-06-25  4:10                 ` Robert Hancock
2007-06-25  4:22                   ` Petr Vandrovec
2007-06-25  4:29                     ` Tejun Heo
2007-07-02  7:12         ` Tejun Heo
2007-07-02 14:14         ` Jeff Garzik

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.