From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: 2.6.17-rc5-git1: regression: resume from suspend(RAM) fails: libata issue Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 23:41:53 -0400 Message-ID: <4477CA81.5080107@garzik.org> References: <1148634262.2310.7.camel@forrest26.sh.intel.com> <20060526230534.GA3640@suse.de> <4477C60E.1070106@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]:37862 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751785AbWE0Dl6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 May 2006 23:41:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Mark Lord , Jens Axboe , "zhao, forrest" , Tejun Heo , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, 26 May 2006, Mark Lord wrote: >> Well, this problem has been with us all for a year now, >> and at this point it impacts practically *every* new "centrino" >> notebook out there. >> >> We have a very simple workaround (previous post) that addresses it >> for 2.6.17, and it's about damn time it got fixed. >> >> If there's a better solution for *2.6.17*, then *please* post it. >> Otherwise, we have a fix. Maybe Linus or Andrew should just apply it? > > I'm definitely in the "at some point, protesting a patch that works > becomes an untenably position to take, no matter _how_ ugly the patch is" > camp. > > If the people who complain that it is ugly cannot come up with an > alternate solution that works and isn't ugly, at some point the "ugly" > complaint just becomes totally pointless. > > Of course, I'm not on linux-ide, and I didn't see this particular > discussion from the start (or even the alledged simple workaround in the > "previous post"), but can people please fill me in? And if the choice is > not between "ugly" vs "pretty", but between "ugly" vs "nonworking", I > think we know what the answer should be. Mark is just a slacker, like the rest of us ;-) The solution, described in [1], is basically "move the delay from to ." The current code does resume PCI device kick the ATA device when it should do resume PCI device bring up the ATA bus kick the ATA device Regards, Jeff [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ide&m=114868613527204&w=2