From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc8-mm2: CONFIG_ATA_SFF: panic involving mount_block_root and down the road Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:02:21 -0400 Message-ID: <480088AD.1040904@garzik.org> References: <20080410203354.f0a6f464.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080411234345.GA4742@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru> <20080412005917.GA4742@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru> <20080412065248.GA8849@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:34061 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756457AbYDLKCh (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:02:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080412065248.GA8849@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Alexey Dobriyan , Tejun Heo , Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 04:59:17AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 03:43:45AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: >>> Pekka fixed SLUB for me, and now core2 box survives up and including to >>> not finding / : >>> >>> Setup is SATA disk with plain old partitions, nothing lvmancy: >>> >>> /dev/sda2 on / type ext3 (rw,noatime) >>> >>> CONFIG_ATA=y >>> CONFIG_ATA_ACPI=y >>> CONFIG_SATA_AHCI=y >>> CONFIG_ATA_PIIX=y >>> CONFIG_PATA_JMICRON=y >>> >>> sda1 is for swap. >>> >>> >>> [ 3.920000] NET: Registered protocol family 1 >>> [ 3.920000] VFS: Cannot open root device "sda2" or unknown-block(0,0) >> The winner is partly me, partly git-libata-all. >> >> The latter introduced CONFIG_ATA_SFF option and put more or less every >> SATA and PATA driver under it. The former honestly answered N to when >> ATA_SFF popped up and failed to check existence of ATA_PIIX and >> PATA_JMICRON in failing .config . >> >> Now raise hands those who knew that your ATA controller is SFF >> compliant. > > Is there any technical reason why we have to bother users with the > ATA_SFF option at all? > > It sounds like a perfect canndidate for being select'ed. 'default y' is appropriate, but option that is used to disable a major swath of legacy code unneeded on modern FIS-based SATA platforms like AHCI. Jeff