Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753637Ab1FOXe2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:34:28 -0400 Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.138]:58288 "EHLO e8.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752251Ab1FOXeZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:34:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:34:17 -0700 From: Nishanth Aravamudan To: Brian King Cc: jgarzik@pobox.com, mbizon@freebox.fr, tj@kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, wayneb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: libata/ipr/powerpc: regression between 2.6.39-rc4 and 2.6.39-rc5 Message-ID: <20110615233417.GB6324@us.ibm.com> References: <20110615191747.GA6324@us.ibm.com> <4DF90FCA.1040706@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DF90FCA.1040706@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.38-8-generic (x86_64) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2335 Lines: 56 On 15.06.2011 [15:02:18 -0500], Brian King wrote: > On 06/15/2011 02:17 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > From what I can tell, the only place that explicitly clears the FROZEN > > flag is the error-handling code via ata_eh_thaw_port(). > > > > So I thought either we're not invoking the error-handler at probe time > > correctly to kick the port or perhaps the SAS code is not clearing the > > flag? > > > > I tried the following patch: > > > > diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c > > index d51f979..abd0e0b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c > > +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c > > @@ -3797,6 +3797,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ata_sas_port_alloc); > > */ > > int ata_sas_port_start(struct ata_port *ap) > > { > > + ap->pflags &= ~ATA_PFLAG_FROZEN; > > return 0; > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ata_sas_port_start); > > > > and the CD-ROM drive works, but I have no idea if it's the right thing > > to do. I chose this particular change, FWIW, because we call > > ata_sas_port_start before we probe in ata_sas_port_init and it seems > > like we need to mark the port as not frozen before we init it? Perhaps > > that should really be a call to a thaw function, not sure. Let's just > > say the ATA/SAS/SCSI interactions are a bit hard to follow at first :) > > 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? Thanks, Nish -- Nishanth Aravamudan IBM Linux Technology Center -- 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/