Re: libata/ipr/powerpc: regression between 2.6.39-rc4 and 2.6.39-rc5

2011-06-16 Thread Brian King
On 06/16/2011 02:51 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 04:34:17PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: >>> That looks like the right thing to do. For ipr's usage of >>> libata, we don't have the concept of a port frozen state, so this flag >>> should really never get set. The alternate way

Re: libata/ipr/powerpc: regression between 2.6.39-rc4 and 2.6.39-rc5

2011-06-16 Thread Tejun Heo
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 04:34:17PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > That looks like the right thing to do. For ipr's usage of > > libata, we don't have the concept of a port frozen state, so this flag > > should really never get set. The alternate way to fix this would be to > > only set ATA_P

Re: libata/ipr/powerpc: regression between 2.6.39-rc4 and 2.6.39-rc5

2011-06-15 Thread Nishanth Aravamudan
On 15.06.2011 [15:02:18 -0500], Brian King wrote: > On 06/15/2011 02:17 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > From what I can tell, the only place that explicitly clears the FROZEN > > flag is the error-handling code via ata_eh_thaw_port(). > > > > So I thought either we're not invoking the error-han

Re: libata/ipr/powerpc: regression between 2.6.39-rc4 and 2.6.39-rc5

2011-06-15 Thread Brian King
On 06/15/2011 02:17 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > From what I can tell, the only place that explicitly clears the FROZEN > flag is the error-handling code via ata_eh_thaw_port(). > > So I thought either we're not invoking the error-handler at probe time > correctly to kick the port or perhaps t

libata/ipr/powerpc: regression between 2.6.39-rc4 and 2.6.39-rc5

2011-06-15 Thread Nishanth Aravamudan
Hi Jeff, It appears that commit 7b3a24c57d2eeda8dba9c205342b12689c4679f9 broke CD-ROMs on the IPR SATA bus on powerpc machines: ata_port_alloc: ENTER ata_port_probe: ata1: bus probe begin ata1.00: ata_dev_read_id: ENTER ata1.00: failed to IDENTIFY (I/O error, err_mask=0x40) ata1.00: ata_dev_