From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out28-65.mail.aliyun.com (out28-65.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.28.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE7E63E5564 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2026 09:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.28.65 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776936227; cv=none; b=PlnF2nA/Cpc44UWaovCcOAuW6T9qB8wE+NJBkzyuCnl+IK3yAfo5IF3eCHFgTSDhbcuSLgCdxU/v28erFjYIRSeGtxzhTdDKhrtyqNjf6S5DI3mmUio8LlwC8eeEOsFkujoPwPbFWlDHNceMnRmAsa+f86/FiOSMEpSVI1fnJzE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776936227; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WPwiFc776qnX9G2zEUaL/RBl3KB88G7/FHizAE8Lsv0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=uNvfO8k5dz1mMpwtIzjDL8aCSSfMYAa/uuuQK4nIly50SE7/aG3WAtpiahMhl7KkIcGn2SPhJNwfAMp/S4pMO06BoKtVIHO8MDvQMjKdwBB+x+C1FbeTjm/dZce2mObZT/F7rLIq3dCFxyugAl8CxJncmk+JJqxmwLR1WB/UpgQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=alancui.cc; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=alancui.cc; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=alancui.cc header.i=@alancui.cc header.b=tpoPs6o4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.28.65 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=alancui.cc Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=alancui.cc Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=alancui.cc header.i=@alancui.cc header.b="tpoPs6o4" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alancui.cc; s=default; t=1776936224; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=WPwiFc776qnX9G2zEUaL/RBl3KB88G7/FHizAE8Lsv0=; b=tpoPs6o4s784o92QLgQQS7EkoqM+rntD2xs9FyZqYtq6g1qh/r/qijkQonOhAUZH1mg7N69emFQzurSPru71jasMIMPWhOtHzSpXMrrsT6KVwrX3W/5thTkZI6C5YBzs7oHL0R+fe0mFnCqJP7m/8TXZ6pMxfx0CAQLuvFn0+wHdGgtBsG8YEjwIIM2Hv2VqzCH9L2XGWZKeCAePCKzeiOFHHyFNqfSiN67PelhaLhYyZweCKtpVtNp5o+jplmm3iAAcClhqRPptGsy3UxFEoLRI+LU1tWoo+V/8VQzpVUJuS29rCQfEDu72UkWYm9XuQdsVhUe8+PVaNrnrB1AHXg== X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=CONTINUE;BC=0.0802791|-1;CH=green;DM=|CONTINUE|false|;DS=CONTINUE|ham_regular_dialog|0.0483249-0.000358162-0.951317;FP=6516163024916397306|0|0|0|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=maildocker-contentspam033023018039;MF=me@alancui.cc;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=2;RT=2;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---.hIXsb3k_1776935904; Received: from alanarchdesktop.localnet(mailfrom:me@alancui.cc fp:SMTPD_---.hIXsb3k_1776935904 cluster:ay29) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Thu, 23 Apr 2026 17:18:25 +0800 From: AlanCui4080 To: Niklas Cassel Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Default IDENTIFY timeout is 5000ms which is too short for enterprise disks Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 17:18:24 +0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <14015677.uLZWGnKmhe@alanarchdesktop> <23071769.EfDdHjke4D@alanarchdesktop> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Tuesday, 21 April 2026 00:27=EF=BC=8Cyou wrote=EF=BC=9A > From this it seems that it is simply the first IDENTIFY that times out. > On the second try, it seems that the IDENTIFY passes, otherwise we would > have seen more "revalidation failed (errno=3D-5)" prints for the same dri= ve. >=20 > So, from this log alone, I don't see any problem. We will try to do IDENT= IFY > up to three times, so just a single IDENTIFY failing should not be a prob= lem. So at your opinion, the error is caused by a hardware failure but not kerne= l,=20 so we should not add any quirk to relax or solve the problem, is that corre= ct? (I just want to confirm that how kernel will deal with this error) > So I think the question is, at this point, can you read from the drive? >=20 > E.g.: > # dd if=3D/dev/sda of=3D/dev/null iflag=3Ddirect bs=3D4K count=3D1 I will be blocked out of the shell for 5 secs unless the IDENTIFY succeed. >=20 > If you can read from the device, then this seem like a problem with zpool > kicking the device off the RAID array (perhaps because it is taking longer > than some zpool defined timeout value?), rather than a libata problem. But after the link re-established, the drive works normally. Alan