Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 May 2008 14:13:51 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: RESEND: [PATCH] libata-sff: Fix oops reported in kerneloops.org for pnp devices with no ctl |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 29 May 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote: >>> It may be that you meant to make it an "else if" case, ie if there was no >>> IO-read, then you do a ndelay(400) as a last desperate case, but that's not >>> how your ata_sdd_sync() is actually written. >> The double-ndelay is definitely wrong, but we do need one. Technically it >> should -only- be a 400ns delay, but we also have a register read in there to >> make sure any posted writes are flushed. > > Well, but the "read + delay" is already in ata_sdd_pause().
Right, that's what I meant by double-ndelay.
> So it's "ata_sdd_sync()" that I think is bogus. Based on its name alone, > it shouldn't have a delay in it (except, as mentioned, possibly for the > fallback case where no port can be used for reading).
Agreed,
Jeff
| |