From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752135AbXCDW7M (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Mar 2007 17:59:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752517AbXCDW7L (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Mar 2007 17:59:11 -0500 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([64.65.253.246]:57398 "EHLO gaimboi.tmr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752135AbXCDW7K (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Mar 2007 17:59:10 -0500 Message-ID: <45EB4FA1.7020305@tmr.com> Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 18:00:49 -0500 From: Bill Davidsen Organization: TMR Associates Inc, Schenectady NY User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061105 SeaMonkey/1.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen.Clark@seclark.us CC: Alan Cox , Jeff Garzik , Robert Hancock , linux-kernel , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: warn if speed limited due to 40-wire cable (v2) References: <45DA44B4.6000209@shaw.ca> <45E8B42E.7010900@garzik.org> <20070303005433.714d75ad@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <45E9DA80.2080109@tmr.com> <45EB0C95.1070505@seclark.us> In-Reply-To: <45EB0C95.1070505@seclark.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Stephen Clark wrote: > Bill Davidsen wrote: > >> Alan Cox wrote: >> >> >>>> it seems broken to manipulate xfer_mask after returning from the >>>> driver's ->mode_filter hook. >>>> >>>> this patch is more than just a speed-limited warning printk, afaics >>>> >>> I actually suggested that order because the only way the printk can be >>> done correctly is for it to be the very last test made. Since the mode >>> filter is not told what mode will be used but just subtracts modes that >>> are not allowed this should be safe. >>> >> >> Far better to have a drive which works slowly than one which works >> unreliably. >> >> >> > That would be true if the 40 wire detection was 100% accurate! The statement is completely correct, even though the detection may not be. ;-) With the current set(s) of patches to do better detection, cable evaluation should be better. But even if not, a slow system is more useful than one which doesn't work, crashes because of swap i/o errors, etc. -- bill davidsen CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979