From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <B.Zolnierkiewicz@elka.pw.edu.pl>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
Subject: Re: ide errors in 7-rc1-mm1 and later
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 18:14:34 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3
Cc: Ed Tomlinson <edt@aei.ca>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
References: <1085689455.7831.8.camel@localhost> <200406041534.48688.bzolnier@elka.pw.edu.pl> <20040604152347.GD1946@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <20040604152347.GD1946@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200406041814.35003.bzolnier@elka.pw.edu.pl>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 4326
Lines: 102

On Friday 04 of June 2004 17:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04 2004, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On Friday 04 of June 2004 14:47, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 04 2004, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > > Well, thanks but I still think that your patch suits crappy code
> > > > perfectly (you know all the complains).
> > >
> > > I'm not on a crusade to clean up drivers/ide, in fact I could not care
> > > less it if rots away (thank fully it is doing just that, pata is going
> > > away). Most of your complaints are not valid in my opinion (->wrq usage
> >
> > You are missing two facts:
> > - I'm on the _crusade_ to clean drivers/ide and merge them with libata
> > later
>
> I'm well aware of that.
>
> > - pata is (slowly) going away but support for it is not going _anywhere_
> >   (although some people are smoking 'libata pata' crack)
> >
> > > is fine. it's not pretty, but it's not broken as long as you serialize
> > > access across the hwgroup of course). Like the rest, it's an artifact
> > > of how messy the code paths are in there. That could be cleaned too
> > > naturally, but that's someone elses job and I'm not about to increase
> > > my work load in that area.
> >
> > Yep, you prefer to increase my work load instead.
>
> If you think that any change to the ide base is increasing your work
> load, then yes. Otherwise no.

No, only the messy ones.

> > > That you need to queue pre/post flushes to support barriers is a
> > > _driver implementation detail_ in my opinion. You don't want to even
> > > advertise
> >
> > It is implementation braindamage IMO (but I'll buy it if rest is OK).
>
> Well feel free to pull a rabbit out of your hat and suggest something
> else that works for barriers. It's mind boggling that nothing so far has
> come out of t13 to address this, I guess data integrity isn't high on
> their list.
>
> So in short, either shut up or put up.

Yeah, this the hardest part.  I'll see what can be done.

> > > that to upper layers. I will move a little of that into the block
> > > layer, if only because SATA will need it as well.
> > >
> > > As for REQ_DRIVE_TASK and ide_get_error_location(), well hell I do take
> > > patches! If there's something you consider broken, damnit send a patch
> >
> > It is _your_ job to do it properly.
>
> I _am_ doing it properly. If you think otherwise, then I suggest you
> show in code what you want changed. If you think it's my job to keep
> changing the code based on unclear suggestions, then you are sadly
> mistaken.

Suggestions were clear, you've chosen to ignore them wishing that
I will correct the patch or that you will push patch upstream anyway.

> > There are no double standards, 'IDE crap embargo' holds for everyone.
>
> Like it or not, but ide code needs changing to support barriers one way

Rule is simple "no more crappola in IDE" and I don't care what your
patch does if this rule is violated.

> or the other. If there's some part of the implementation you don't like,
> then I suggest you show why. Since we appear to have reached a

Damn, I showed it few times.  You seem to contradict yourself.

> discussion dead lock, I suggest you do so by showing a patch changing eg
> the ide_get_error_location() stuff. Sadly you could have done this
> roughly 10 times in the same time frame that you have written these
> emails.

Are you trying to trick me into doing your task?

> > > to correct it and I'll surely merge it into the base if I agree it
> > > makes sense. That's the way to get changes done if you feel something
> > > should be different, snide remarks with basically zero detail is not.
> >
> > I think I provided enough details few times already.
> > You can always ask in case of problems (keep linux-ide@ cc:-ed).
> >
> > [ First thing to do is to use REQ_DRIVE_TASKFILE not REQ_DRIVE_TASK. ]
>
> REQ_DRIVE_TASKFILE change I agree with, and yeah you have given enough
> detail there. And I'll work iget_get_error_location() to fill the holes
> in case of flush errors. I'll get that change done soonish and post
> updates for -mm.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/