From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCHSET #upstream-fixes] libata: update HPA handling Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:48:08 +0900 Message-ID: <46D25788.4090907@gmail.com> References: <20070815180508.GD21623@htj.dyndns.org> <46C406AD.5000904@garzik.org> <46C4305B.5090106@gmail.com> 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 ([209.85.146.182]:4316 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751008AbXH0Ese (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:48:34 -0400 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j4so1925483wah for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:48:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <46C4305B.5090106@gmail.com> 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 Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. > PING. Do you want me to separate out the blacklist patch for #upstream-fixes and commit HPA error handling reimplementation only into #upstream? -- tejun