Bug#714295: [PATCH libata/for-3.11-fixes] libata: make it clear that sata_inic162x is experimental

Hello, Greg. I think the following commit should go into -stable but forgot to cc stable. It's now in Linus' tree. Can you please include it in -stable? Thanks! On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 05:13:07PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > From bb9696192826a7d9279caf872e95b41bc26c7eff Mon Sep 17

Bug#714295: [PATCH libata/for-3.11-fixes] libata: make it clear that sata_inic162x is experimental

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 05:57:20AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 17:13 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, guys. > > > > I've committed the following patch to for-3.11-fixes. It's > > unfortunate but I can't see a good way out at t

Bug#714295: [PATCH libata/for-3.11-fixes] libata: make it clear that sata_inic162x is experimental

Hello, guys. I've committed the following patch to for-3.11-fixes. It's unfortunate but I can't see a good way out at this point. :( Thanks. - 8< >From bb9696192826a7d9279caf872e95b41bc26c7eff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tejun Heo Date: M

Bug#714295: Data corruption when using INIC-1623TA2 controller

Hello, On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 03:49:24PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > So this does seem to be a fault in either this card or the driver. Can > you suggest any further tests that Martin could do? Unfortunately, I don't have any idea. That driver never really matured enough. I couldn't find en

Bug#598518: linux-image-2.6-686: ata_piix module loaded before ahci module deactivate hotplug support (regression from lenny)

Hello, On 09/30/2010 12:27 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 18:50 +0200, thomas.debesse+deb...@gmail.com > wrote: > [...] >> ICH6 sata controller could be managed by both ata_piix and ahci module but >> only >> ahci module handle hotplug. >> At boot time, when ata_piix is loaded b

Bug#585556: More ata_piix spurious IRQs

Hello, Ben. On 06/12/2010 01:13 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > (more details at ). > > This is in Debian kernel version 2.6.32-15 which is based on stable > version 2.6.32.14 but has your backported spurious IRQ handling patch > taken from SLE11 (References: bnc#445872,

Re: Working around bogus HPAs in libata

Hello, On 04/24/2010 04:26 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> The patch I posted is rolled up version which contained currently >> pending HPA unlock on shrink patch. >> >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ide/45662 > > It sounds like that should go to stable as well. I think it's a bit too perva

Re: Working around bogus HPAs in libata

Hello, On 04/06/2010 11:28 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > If a system vendor puts its own name or model numbers on the disks it > ships then I think the BIOS or other platform firmware can reasonably > assume that it 'owns' and can write to the HPA on a disk with the > vendor's identification. (I wou

Re: Working around bogus HPAs in libata

Hello, On 04/03/2010 06:57 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Several distributions have turned on the switch by default. As I said > previously, this turned out to be a bad idea. Heh, yeah, I did that on openSUSE which was mandatory for backward compatibility because ide unlocked HPA by default (at lea

Re: Working around bogus HPAs in libata

On 03/22/2010 02:25 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Since SCSI has no concept of the Host Protected Area (HPA) supported by > ATA, ATA disks handled by libata have no set_capacity() operation and it > appears to be impossible to override an HPA except through the libata > module parameter. > > In parti