On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 20:42 +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > On Llu, 2005-02-14 at 00:16, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Error handling is -very- stupid simple right now: if we get an error, > > report that error in the struct request [based on your ATA -> SCSI sense > > conversion] back to upper layer. > > > > It needs to be fleshed out into separate host bus / ATA bus / device > > errors, and handled accordingly. > > Thats a barrier to real PATA IDE I guess then. We see a lot of cable > errors and speed change downs and not all are caused by misdetecting > 80wire cables. > > The current IDE layer does speed changes synchronously outside the state > machine which makes a nasty mess when your error handling interrupt > state wants to speed change.
It's not _too_ bad ... you can just put the current request "on hold" (and block the queue) until the thread finishes with the speed change, but I tend to think nowadays that the state machine approach might be better in the long run (even if a bit more complex to implement in the first place). Ben. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
