From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCHSET #upstream-fixes] libata: update HPA handling Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:09:15 +0900 Message-ID: <46C4305B.5090106@gmail.com> References: <20070815180508.GD21623@htj.dyndns.org> <46C406AD.5000904@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.178]:26576 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752263AbXHPLJV (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:09:21 -0400 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so245056wah for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 04:09:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <46C406AD.5000904@garzik.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox Jeff Garzik wrote: > Tejun Heo wrote: >> Hello, >> >> The current HPA handling implementation isn't robust enough and causes >> regressions on several cases. This patchset contains HPA handling >> update. >> >> * blacklist devices which puke on READ_NATIVE_MAX >> * proper/better error handling - in most cases, HPA failure won't >> result in detection failure >> * re-read IDENTIFY data after resizing >> * more concise messages >> >> Tested by setting up HPA area manually. > > This is a bit big for 2.6.23-rc though :/ Agreed. We can probably just get away with ATA_HORKAGE_BROKEN_HPA patch for 2.6.23-rc but if we hit a device which is broken but isn't listed, libata will fail to detect the device, which is a pretty serious regression. -- tejun