From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH] ide: add dcache flushing after PIO Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:16:25 +0900 Message-ID: <43C229E9.6080705@gmail.com> References: <20051221094847.GA12279@htj.dyndns.org> <20051221140022.GA25001@htj.dyndns.org> <20051221140344.GA1736@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <43A969FD.3090106@gmail.com> <58cb370e0512210757n25ddd614p33f3d70c8ff813cd@mail.gmail.com> <20051221175416.GH1736@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20060107170623.GA15171@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <58cb370e0601071217x390fc1fpbbc9866b38ac28d7@mail.gmail.com> <20060107212248.GJ31384@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <58cb370e0601071441v2d2e8f6eq18ebd8ea0280d1d1@mail.gmail.com> <20060109090842.GB9189@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.197]:62340 "EHLO zproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751130AbWAIJQb (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 04:16:31 -0500 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 14so4135807nzn for ; Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:16:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20060109090842.GB9189@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Russell King Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , James Steward , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" Russell King wrote: > On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 11:41:53PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > >>Tejun posted RFC to lkml which got zero replies so I thought >>that I will apply his patch if it *works*. > > > Which appears to have been missed. > > >>>>So far there was none and nobody seemed to care to test/comment >>>>this patch ("works fine" is enough). >>> >>>Odd, as demonstrated by the linux-ide archives above I've already >>>commented on it. >> >>OK, we have discussed the way to fix the problem. >> >>Still nothing was said whether this patch *actually* works or not. > > > That's because I've already suggested that the patch is over-complex > and I'm waiting for an updated patch. I'm not going to ask folk to > test one patch which I know is doing far too much, only to have to > ask them to test another patch later on. > > IOW, I'm not going to waste folk's time with a patch I know isn't > suitable. > > >>Test original Tejun's patch then. > > > I can't - I'm not able to reproduce the problem due to the systems > I have available to me. > > The way forward is an updated patch - Tejun's original patch updated > with my comments. Once that's available, folk can test a patch which > stands a chance of making it into mainline. > > > Let me make my position clear: I don't care about this problem myself > because I don't see it. That's why it's hung around since 2.4 times. > My only involvement here is due to (a) other folk caring about it and > (b) the lack of knowledge to get it fixed. > Hi, Russel & Bartlomiej. As the message to the lkml didn't get any replies, I kind of forgot about it. And after Russel's explanation, I don't think my first approach is good. I will make another patch according to what I've proposed in the message to lkml. I'm currently burried under libata EH related stuff, but I think (or hope) it will be sorted out in a few days. So, see you guys in a few days. Thanks. -- tejun