Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?
smithi at nimnet.asn.au
Sun Mar 31 05:20:11 UTC 2013
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 21:00:24 -0700, Peter Wemm wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Matthias Andree <mandree at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > Am 27.03.2013 22:22, schrieb Alexander Motin:
> >> Hi.
> >> Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA
> >> stack, using only some controller drivers of old ata(4) by having
> >> `options ATA_CAM` enabled in all kernels by default. I have a wish to
> >> drop non-ATA_CAM ata(4) code, unused since that time from the head
> >> branch to allow further ATA code cleanup.
> >> Does any one here still uses legacy ATA stack (kernel explicitly built
> >> without `options ATA_CAM`) for some reason, for example as workaround
> >> for some regression? Does anybody have good ideas why we should not drop
> >> it now?
> > Alexander,
> > The regression in http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/157397
> > where the SATA NCQ slots stall for some Samsung drives in the new stack,
> > and consequently hang the computer for prolonged episodes where it is in
> > the NCQ error handling, disallows removal of the old driver. (Last
> > checked with 9.1-RELEASE at current patchlevel.)
> We're talking about 10.x, so if you want it fixed, you need update
> with 10.x information.
> Please put 10.x diagnostics in the PR.
Given Alexander also posted this to -stable, just for clarity, are we
_only_ talking about 10.x here, or might this change get MFC'd to 9?
(dropping -current as I'm not subscribed so would only get bounced)
More information about the freebsd-stable