Re: IT8212/ITE RAID

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz]

On 8/14/05, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sul, 2005-08-14 at 17:56 +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > * your stuff was accepted after all (and some stuff like ide-cd
> >   fixes was never splitted from the -ac patchset and submitted)
> 
> They were.

I remember discussion about end-of-media ide-cd fixes but the patch
was never submitted.  If you have *URL* to the patch I'll work on the patch.

> > * you've never provided any technical details on "the stuff I broke"
> 
> I did, several times. I had some detailed locking discussions with
> Manfred and others on it as a result. The locking in the base IDE is
> still broken, in fact its become worse - the random locking around
> timing changes now causes some PIIX users to see double spinlock debug
> with the base kernel as an example.

Huh?  *WHICH* my patch causes this?

I don't remember this discussion et all, care to give some pointers?

> > > Would make sense, but I thought I had the right bits masked. Will take a
> >
> > WIN_RESTORE is send unconditionally (as it always was),
> >
> > This is not the right thing, somebody should go over all ATA/ATAPI
> > drafts and come with the correct strategy of handling WIN_RESTORE.
> 
> Ok that would make sense. Matthew Garrett also reported some problems in
> that area with suspend/resume (BIOS restoring its idea of things...)

Quite likely, WIN_RESTORE is not sent on resume etc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/