Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:55:16 -0500 From: Billy Newsom <smartweb@leadhill.net> To: Tim Howe <tim.howe@celebrityresorts.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] option to re-enable aggressive ATA probing Message-ID: <433E08A4.7070409@leadhill.net> In-Reply-To: <87vf0noxgk.fsf_-_@beaker.data-secure.net> References: <87y85nuqhy.fsf@beaker.data-secure.net> <4335D1D2.9060501@leadhill.net> <87ll1jzqoa.fsf@beaker.data-secure.net> <87vf0noxgk.fsf_-_@beaker.data-secure.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tim Howe wrote: > Tim Howe <tim.howe@celebrityresorts.com> writes: > > >>ata0-master: stat=0xd0 err=0xd0 lsb=0xd0 msb=0xd0 > > > This turned out to be the key. > > Version 1.51 of ata-lowlevel.c added a check for stat0/1, err, lsb, and I am just wondering about this. As far as I can tell, I have the ata-lowlevel.c file from March with this CVS tag (I run cvsup every other day, so this should be the latest for 5-Stable): src/sys/dev/ata/ata-lowlevel.c,v 1.44.2.5 2005/03/24 18:44:27 mdodd It is the 1.44.2.5 version, and I believe that I have been using it for awhile, eve before the sistuation showed up with my ATA drive not booting. As I reported bvefore, the July 4th cvs code worked for me, but not a recent one (late September). I would guess that something would have changed in that interim. You seem to be targeting either a different cvs version (intended for HEAD) or the problem you mention could have been broken over a period of time with help from other cvs changes? I don't know, but I will try the patch when I can. These are my relevent supfile config options: *default release=cvs tag=RELENG_5 *default delete use-rel-suffix src-all Billy > msb being identical. If they are, it aborts the probe. The attached > patch creates an option ATA_AGGRESSIVE_PROBE which disables this for the > old aggressive behavior (which may wait up to the full 31 seconds). > > I also took the liberty of reworking the still-busy check from 3 > equality tests to 2 bitmask tests. It seems simpler to my eye with > identical results, but if I missed something or the other style was > preferred please let me know. > > The patch is against 5-STABLE because that's what I have. > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?433E08A4.7070409>