From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S1750884AbWFBUFM@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1750884AbWFBUFM (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Fri, 2 Jun 2006 16:05:12 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751474AbWFBUFM
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 2 Jun 2006 16:05:12 -0400
Received: from mail.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:28801 "EHLO mx1.suse.de")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750884AbWFBUFK (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 2 Jun 2006 16:05:10 -0400
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:02:02 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       stable@kernel.org, Justin Forbes <jmforbes@linuxtx.org>,
       Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>,
       "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
       Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, Chuck Wolber <chuckw@quantumlinux.com>,
       Chris Wedgewood <reviews@ml.cw.f00f.org>, torvalds@osdl.org,
       akpm@osdl.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>,
       Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] the latest consensus libata resume fix
Message-ID: <20060602200202.GA21632@suse.de>
References: <20060602194618.482948000@sous-sol.org> <20060602194742.420464000@sous-sol.org> <20060602195046.GO4400@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060602195046.GO4400@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 09:50:46PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02 2006, Chris Wright wrote:
> > -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> > ------------------
> > 
> > From: Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>
> > 
> > Okay, just to sum things up.
> > 
> > This forces libata to wait for up to 2 seconds for BUSY|DRQ to clear
> > on resume before continuing.
> > 
> > [jgarzik adds...]  During testing we never saw DRQ asserted, but
> > nonetheless (a) this works and (b) testing for DRQ won't hurt.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by:  Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>
> > Acked-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
> > ---
> > 
> >  drivers/scsi/libata-core.c |    1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > --- linux-2.6.16.19.orig/drivers/scsi/libata-core.c
> > +++ linux-2.6.16.19/drivers/scsi/libata-core.c
> > @@ -4293,6 +4293,7 @@ static int ata_start_drive(struct ata_po
> >  int ata_device_resume(struct ata_port *ap, struct ata_device *dev)
> >  {
> >  	if (ap->flags & ATA_FLAG_SUSPENDED) {
> > +		ata_busy_wait(ap, ATA_BUSY | ATA_DRQ, 200000);
> >  		ap->flags &= ~ATA_FLAG_SUSPENDED;
> >  		ata_set_mode(ap);
> >  	}
> 
> I'm not against the patch as such, but last I checked 2.6.16 actually
> worked ok. The timer fixes in 2.6.17-rc is what apparently got the
> resume breaking.
> 
> So unless there's a bug report on 2.6.16.x for this, then it's a little
> against the -stable rules to add it.

Marcel (now on the To:) was the one reporting this.  Marcel, is this
really necessary for 2.6.16.x?

thanks,

greg k-h