From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [patch] libata: add ioctls to support SMART Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:44:11 -0400 Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <4133676B.70800@pobox.com> References: <200408301531.i7UFVBg29089@ra.tuxdriver.com> <41336570.8090308@wasp.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:55227 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268681AbUH3Roa (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:44:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <41336570.8090308@wasp.net.au> List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Brad Campbell Cc: "John W. Linville" , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Brad Campbell wrote: > John W. Linville wrote: > >> Support for HDIO_DRIVE_CMD and HDIO_DRIVE_TASK in libata. Useful for >> supporting SMART w/ unmodified smartctl and smartd userland binaries. >> >> Not happy w/ loop after failed ata_qc_new_init(), but needed because >> smartctl >> and smartd did not retry after failure. Likely need an option to wait >> for >> available qc? Also not sure all the error return codes are correct... >> > > YYYYYYYYYYEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!! > > I know it's a bit kludgy and does not really fit the philosophy of > libata but it works and it lets me keep an eye on my drives *now*. > > Although just for good measure I'll probably unmount and stop my raid > arrays before I use it on the disks. Whats it like for locking on a busy > system? I wouldn't trust it on a busy system yet -- it submits the command to the device without checking if there is a command already outstanding. The patch could _definitely_ corrupt data or lock your hardware, since it bypasses the SCSI mechanism that ensures that only one command is executing at a time. Jeff