From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com (e9.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.139]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e9.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6F8DB6FB8 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 23:28:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e9.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p5GCvu9X004813 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:57:56 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p5GDSejF141592 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:28:40 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p5GDSeMo004981 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:28:40 -0300 Message-ID: <4DFA0507.3090609@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:28:39 -0500 From: Brian King MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: libata/ipr/powerpc: regression between 2.6.39-rc4 and 2.6.39-rc5 References: <20110615191747.GA6324@us.ibm.com> <4DF90FCA.1040706@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110615233417.GB6324@us.ibm.com> <20110616075114.GH8141@htj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20110616075114.GH8141@htj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: jgarzik@pobox.com, wayneb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, mbizon@freebox.fr, Nishanth Aravamudan , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 06/16/2011 02:51 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 04:34:17PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: >>> That looks like the right thing to do. For ipr's usage of >>> libata, we don't have the concept of a port frozen state, so this flag >>> should really never get set. The alternate way to fix this would be to >>> only set ATA_PFLAG_FROZEN in ata_port_alloc if ap->ops->error_handler >>> is not NULL. >> >> It seemed like ipr is as you say, but I wasn't sure if it was >> appropriate to make the change above in the common libata-scis code or >> not. I don't want to break some other device on accident. >> >> Also, I tried your suggestion, but I don't think that can happen in >> ata_port_alloc? ata_port_alloc is allocated ap itself, and it seems like >> ap->ops typically gets set only after ata_port_alloc returns? > > Maybe we can test error_handler in ata_sas_port_start()? Good point. Since libsas is converted to the new eh now, we would need to have this test. Thanks, Brian -- Brian King Linux on Power Virtualization IBM Linux Technology Center