[PATCH -stable] libata: sync NCQ blacklist with upstream

[PATCH -stable] libata: sync NCQ blacklist with upstream

[Tejun Heo]

Synchronize NCQ blacklist with the current upstream.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/ata/libata-core.c |    8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Index: tree0/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
===================================================================
--- tree0.orig/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
+++ tree0/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
@@ -3793,11 +3793,17 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry 
 	/* Drives which do spurious command completion */
 	{ "HTS541680J9SA00",	"SB2IC7EP",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
 	{ "HTS541612J9SA00",	"SBDIC7JP",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
+	{ "HDT722516DLA380",	"V43OA96A",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
 	{ "Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00", "SB4OC70P", ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
 	{ "WDC WD740ADFD-00NLR1", NULL,		ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
+	{ "WDC WD3200AAJS-00RYA0", "12.01B01",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
 	{ "FUJITSU MHV2080BH",	"00840028",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
+	{ "ST9120822AS",	"3.CLF",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
 	{ "ST9160821AS",	"3.CLF",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
-	{ "ST3160812AS",	"3.AD",		ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
+	{ "ST9160821AS",	"3.ALD",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
+	{ "ST9160821AS",	"3.CCD",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
+	{ "ST3160812AS",	"3.ADJ",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
+	{ "ST980813AS",		"3.ADB",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
 	{ "SAMSUNG HD401LJ",	"ZZ100-15",	ATA_HORKAGE_NONCQ, },
 
 	/* devices which puke on READ_NATIVE_MAX */

Re: [stable] [PATCH -stable] libata: sync NCQ blacklist with upstream

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 10:55:15AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Synchronize NCQ blacklist with the current upstream.

Which -stable tree is this for, 2.6.22 or 2.6.23?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [stable] [PATCH -stable] libata: sync NCQ blacklist with upstream

[Tejun Heo]

Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 10:55:15AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Synchronize NCQ blacklist with the current upstream.
> 
> Which -stable tree is this for, 2.6.22 or 2.6.23?

It's against 2.6.23.

-- 
tejun

Re: [stable] [PATCH -stable] libata: sync NCQ blacklist with upstream

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 12:21:23PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 10:55:15AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> Synchronize NCQ blacklist with the current upstream.
> > 
> > Which -stable tree is this for, 2.6.22 or 2.6.23?
> 
> It's against 2.6.23.

Ok, but things only go into -stable after they are already in Linus's
tree, which hasn't happened yet...

So what is considered "upstream" here?  Jeff's tree?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [stable] [PATCH -stable] libata: sync NCQ blacklist with upstream

[Tejun Heo]

Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 12:21:23PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 10:55:15AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>>> Synchronize NCQ blacklist with the current upstream.
>>> Which -stable tree is this for, 2.6.22 or 2.6.23?
>> It's against 2.6.23.
> 
> Ok, but things only go into -stable after they are already in Linus's
> tree, which hasn't happened yet...
> 
> So what is considered "upstream" here?  Jeff's tree?

Yeah, except for one entry, all others are in libata-dev#upstream which
will be pulled when -rc1 opens.  I'll ping you back when they actually
get merged.

-- 
tejun

Re: [stable] [PATCH -stable] libata: sync NCQ blacklist with upstream

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 12:41:46PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 12:21:23PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 10:55:15AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >>>> Synchronize NCQ blacklist with the current upstream.
> >>> Which -stable tree is this for, 2.6.22 or 2.6.23?
> >> It's against 2.6.23.
> > 
> > Ok, but things only go into -stable after they are already in Linus's
> > tree, which hasn't happened yet...
> > 
> > So what is considered "upstream" here?  Jeff's tree?
> 
> Yeah, except for one entry, all others are in libata-dev#upstream which
> will be pulled when -rc1 opens.  I'll ping you back when they actually
> get merged.

Thanks, that would help out a lot.

greg k-h

Re: [stable] [PATCH -stable] libata: sync NCQ blacklist with upstream

[Tejun Heo]

Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 12:41:46PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 12:21:23PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>>> Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 10:55:15AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>>>>> Synchronize NCQ blacklist with the current upstream.
>>>>> Which -stable tree is this for, 2.6.22 or 2.6.23?
>>>> It's against 2.6.23.
>>> Ok, but things only go into -stable after they are already in Linus's
>>> tree, which hasn't happened yet...
>>>
>>> So what is considered "upstream" here?  Jeff's tree?
>> Yeah, except for one entry, all others are in libata-dev#upstream which
>> will be pulled when -rc1 opens.  I'll ping you back when they actually
>> get merged.
> 
> Thanks, that would help out a lot.

Alright, those changes are in Linus's tree now.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun