Re: [PATCH] Re: [git patches] libata updates - (improve post-reset device ready test) regression

[Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>]

J.A. Magallón wrote:
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:35:11 -0400, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
> 
>> Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>>>> Tejun Heo (12):
>>>>       libata: improve post-reset device ready test
>>> This commit (78ab88f04f44bed566d51dce0c7cbfeff6449a06) causes a long
>>> boot delay with my onboard Promise controller. It seems like libata
>>> probes for a nonexisting PATA drive...
>>>
> 
> I also had this patch collected from LKML, that still applies to -git6.
> Is it really needed ?
> ref: http://marc.info/?l=linux-ide&m=120913178617926&w=2
..
> --- upstream/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c	2008-04-30 17:35:36.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c	2008-04-30 17:35:45.000000000 -0400
> @@ -1312,8 +1312,7 @@
>  		err_mask |= AC_ERR_ATA_BUS;
>  		action |= ATA_EH_RESET;
>  	}
> -	if (serror &
> -	    (SERR_DATA_RECOVERED | SERR_COMM_RECOVERED | SERR_DATA)) {
> +	if (serror & (SERR_DATA_RECOVERED | SERR_DATA)) {
>  		err_mask |= AC_ERR_ATA_BUS;
>  		action |= ATA_EH_RESET;
>  	}

..

The original problem I had, which prompted this patch, eventually was
resolved in other ways.  But I do think that a hw-recovered bit in SError
is not a good reason to reset everything.

Tejun suggested that we still want to know about such errors,
and eventually do something if they repeat often enough.
But doing a port/link reset every single time ? 

> @@ -1924,7 +1923,7 @@
>  	}
>  
>  	if (ehc->i.serror)
> -		ata_port_printk(ap, KERN_ERR,
> +		ata_link_printk(link, KERN_ERR,
>  		  "SError: { %s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s}\n",
>  		  ehc->i.serror & SERR_DATA_RECOVERED ? "RecovData " : "",
>  		  ehc->i.serror & SERR_COMM_RECOVERED ? "RecovComm " : "",
> 
..

That portion of the patch is still a very good idea.

Cheers