Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:31:16 -0500 From: Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Quality of FreeBSD Message-ID: <20050721203116.GC62615@FS.denninger.net> In-Reply-To: <1121976767.7274.60.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org> References: <200507211803.j6LI34dV005050@ferens.net> <20050721194500.W9208@fledge.watson.org> <20050721192613.GA61902@FS.denninger.net> <1121976767.7274.60.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 04:12:47PM -0400, Paul Mather wrote: > On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 14:26 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: > > > Ok, Robert, but then here's the question.... > > > > How come the ATA code which was very stable in 4.x was screwed with in a > > production release, breaking it, with no path backwards to the working > > code? > > Not to mention that this happened during the 5.x release cycle. It's > one thing to have a regression creep in when moving from one major > release to another (e.g., "oh, that's the fallout from introducing Big > Feature XYZ" or "a big architectural revamp may have broken some > things"), but it's another thing entirely to have it happen between > minor releases, which are supposed to be "evolution, not revolution." > > (Although the whole "Early Adopter" status for early 5.x releases might > mean all that is muddied when it comes to the 5.x series.) > > My main disappointment with the ATA DMA TIMEOUT bug is not that it crept > in (these things happen), but that it did not seem to be taken seriously > when it had done so. (Though, as Robert said, if the developers can't > reproduce the problem, it's hard for them to work on and fix it.) > > Cheers, > > Paul. > -- > e-mail: paul@gromit.dlib.vt.edu My main disappointment is that it STILL isn't being taken seriously, six months down the road. My PR, for instance, is still open - as well it should be, as the DMA_TIMEOUT bug still exists. Fixing the retry code so that the transaction is actually retried up to three times (instead of causing the disk to be declared broken on the first instance) <IS NOT A FIX>. The problem is very easy to reproduce; I have put forward the exact configuration necessary to do so in the original PR. I have since discovered (and others have reported) that it is not particularly sensitive to the exact hardware involved - basically any SII chipset PCI SATA adapter (which is like all of the "basic" ones, including the Adaptec and Bustek) with a pair of SATA disks appears to be all that is required. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://homecuda.com Emerald Coast: Buy / sell homes, cars, boats! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050721203116.GC62615>