From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>
Subject: Re: libata timeouts when stressing a Samsung HDD
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:27:07 -0500
Message-ID: <499D7A4B.5010804@rtr.ca>
References: <20090202164053.4ecca9dd@dhcp-100-2-144.bos.redhat.com>	<49922A2D.508@kernel.org>	<49924F48.4000009@rtr.ca> <20090211152908.383744cd@dhcp-100-2-144.bos.redhat.com> <49934B20.4060206@rtr.ca> <49934D24.1050204@garzik.org> <4993A57D.6010107@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from rtr.ca ([76.10.145.34]:34884 "EHLO mail.rtr.ca"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753147AbZBSP1J (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:27:09 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4993A57D.6010107@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@gmail.com>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>, Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org

 >ata1.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x6 frozen
 >ata1.00: cmd ea/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/a0 tag 0
 >         res 40/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/00 Emask 0x4 (timeout)
 >ata1.00: status: { DRDY }

>>> I wonder if it's just a case of too short a timeout on the cache flushes?
..
> However, in this case the drive is not reporting Busy status at the 
> timeout, which suggests maybe an interrupt got lost or something. (Could 
> be still the drive's fault.)
..

If I recall correctly, The reported shadow register contents are bogus
when a timeout occurs.  So we don't actually know what the drive state was.

Or do we, Tejun?