Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756096Ab1FPHvW (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 03:51:22 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:42031 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751518Ab1FPHvT (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 03:51:19 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=uOqDaVEN4SiiVbIwksxf5MgkjQYW89mMIG0F4T5pufb0uODFIAIOwj2fAGuOXH4/ym u5W/xMpTOi9NEsEWfymN71zsJg/Ji00krG0px2JSzg5zkJDYXCi0W5MAZCRdH0qe/I51 gyQohz4NfVdMHnGEy9xlWh4W7G1QJ/x3d0d78= Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:51:14 +0200 From: Tejun Heo To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: Brian King , jgarzik@pobox.com, mbizon@freebox.fr, 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: <20110616075114.GH8141@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20110615191747.GA6324@us.ibm.com> <4DF90FCA.1040706@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110615233417.GB6324@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110615233417.GB6324@us.ibm.com> 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: 1107 Lines: 26 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()? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/