Re: hsm violation

Re: hsm violation

[Andrew Morton]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:32:22 +0200 Enrico Sardi <enricoss@tiscali.it> wrote:

> Hi all!
> 
> I found the following messages in the kernel log:
> ---------------------------------
> 
> [   45.288000] set_level status: 0
> [   45.572000] set_level status: 0
> [   45.740000] set_level status: 0
> [   46.820000] set_level status: 0
> [   47.092000] set_level status: 0
> [   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)
> [   61.176000] ata1.00: cmd 60/08:08:37:cc:00/00:00:0c:00:00/40 tag 1 
> cdb 0x0 data 4096 in
> [   61.176000]          res 50/00:08:27:3c:ed/00:00:0b:00:00/40 Emask 
> 0x2 (HSM violation)
> [   61.488000] ata1: soft resetting port
> [   61.660000] ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
> [   61.660000] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 312581808, 
> hpa_sectors = 312581808
> [   61.660000] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 312581808, 
> hpa_sectors = 312581808
> [   61.660000] ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100
> [   61.660000] ata1: EH complete
> [   61.660000] SCSI device sda: 312581808 512-byte hdwr sectors (160042 MB)
> [   61.660000] sda: Write Protect is off
> [   61.660000] sda: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
> [   61.660000] SCSI device sda: write cache: enabled, read cache: 
> enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA
> [  101.972000] set_level status: 0
> [  102.200000] set_level status: 0
> [  102.404000] set_level status: 0
> [  103.284000] set_level status: 0
> [  103.476000] set_level status: 0
> [  103.912000] set_level status: 0
> [  104.284000] set_level status: 0
> [  104.660000] set_level status: 0
> [  113.576000] set_level status: 0
> [  559.020000] set_level status: 0
> [  559.476000] set_level status: 0
> [  559.632000] set_level status: 0
> [  561.744000] set_level status: 0
> [  563.560000] set_level status: 0
> [  564.224000] set_level status: 0
> [  564.688000] set_level status: 0
> [  567.096000] set_level status: 0
> [  567.712000] set_level status: 0
> [  569.060000] set_level status: 0
> [  569.524000] set_level status: 0
> [  569.828000] set_level status: 0
> [  570.204000] set_level status: 0
> [  570.504000] set_level status: 0
> [  571.724000] set_level status: 0
> [  572.012000] set_level status: 0
> [  572.360000] set_level status: 0
> [  572.696000] set_level status: 0
> [  573.016000] set_level status: 0
> [  574.092000] set_level status: 0
> [  574.348000] set_level status: 0
> [  604.476000] set_level status: 0
> [  604.764000] set_level status: 0
> [  605.048000] set_level status: 0
> [  605.244000] set_level status: 0
> [  605.400000] set_level status: 0
> [  605.540000] set_level status: 0
> [  605.688000] set_level status: 0
> [  606.528000] set_level status: 0
> [  606.820000] set_level status: 0
> [  608.336000] set_level status: 0
> 

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.

That great spew of "set_level status: 0" is fairly annoying and useless.

Quite a lot has changed since 2.6.20.  Are you able to test, say,
2.6.22-rc5?



> 
> This is the result of hdparm -I /dev/sda:
> 
> 
> /dev/sda:
> 
> ATA device, with non-removable media
>     Model Number:       Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00
>     Serial Number:      SB2461***V3AWE
>     Firmware Revision:  SB4OC70P
> Standards:
>     Used: ATA/ATAPI-7 T13 1532D revision 1
>     Supported: 7 6 5 4
> Configuration:
>     Logical        max    current
>     cylinders    16383    16383
>     heads        16    16
>     sectors/track    63    63
>     --
>     CHS current addressable sectors:   16514064
>     LBA    user addressable sectors:  268435455
>     LBA48  user addressable sectors:  312581808
>     device size with M = 1024*1024:      152627 MBytes
>     device size with M = 1000*1000:      160041 MBytes (160 GB)
> Capabilities:
>     LBA, IORDY(can be disabled)
>     Queue depth: 32
>     Standby timer values: spec'd by Vendor, no device specific minimum
>     R/W multiple sector transfer: Max = 16    Current = 16
>     Advanced power management level: 128 (0x80)
>     Recommended acoustic management value: 128, current value: 254
>     DMA: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5
>          Cycle time: min=120ns recommended=120ns
>     PIO: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
>          Cycle time: no flow control=120ns  IORDY flow control=120ns
> Commands/features:
>     Enabled    Supported:
>        *    SMART feature set
>             Security Mode feature set
>        *    Power Management feature set
>        *    Write cache
>        *    Look-ahead
>        *    Host Protected Area feature set
>        *    WRITE_BUFFER command
>        *    READ_BUFFER command
>        *    NOP cmd
>        *    DOWNLOAD_MICROCODE
>        *    Advanced Power Management feature set
>             Power-Up In Standby feature set
>        *    SET_FEATURES required to spinup after power up
>             SET_MAX security extension
>             Automatic Acoustic Management feature set
>        *    48-bit Address feature set
>        *    Device Configuration Overlay feature set
>        *    Mandatory FLUSH_CACHE
>        *    FLUSH_CACHE_EXT
>        *    SMART error logging
>        *    SMART self-test
>        *    General Purpose Logging feature set
>        *    WRITE_{DMA|MULTIPLE}_FUA_EXT
>        *    64-bit World wide name
>        *    IDLE_IMMEDIATE with UNLOAD
>        *    SATA-I signaling speed (1.5Gb/s)
>        *    Native Command Queueing (NCQ)
>        *    Host-initiated interface power management
>        *    Phy event counters
>             Non-Zero buffer offsets in DMA Setup FIS
>             DMA Setup Auto-Activate optimization
>             Device-initiated interface power management
>             In-order data delivery
>        *    Software settings preservation
> Security:
>     Master password revision code = 65534
>         supported
>     not    enabled
>     not    locked
>         frozen
>     not    expired: security count
>     not    supported: enhanced erase
>     82min for SECURITY ERASE UNIT.
> Checksum: correct
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> I'm using Ubuntu feisty fawn (2.6.20-16-generic) on an Acer Travelmate 
> 6292 (Santa Rosa).
> 

Re: hsm violation

[Robert Hancock]

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/

Re: hsm violation

[Tejun Heo]

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

Re: hsm violation

[Tejun Heo]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> That great spew of "set_level status: 0" is fairly annoying and useless.

I don't know where those are coming from.  It's not from libata.

-- 
tejun

[PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist

[Tejun Heo]

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 */

Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist

[Robert Hancock]

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/

Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist

[Tejun Heo]

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

Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist

[Petr Vandrovec]

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

Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist

[Tejun Heo]

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

Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist

[Robert Hancock]

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/

Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist

[Petr Vandrovec]

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

Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist

[Tejun Heo]

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

Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist

[Tejun Heo]

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

Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] libata: add HTS541616J9SA00 to NCQ blacklist

[Jeff Garzik]

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