Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?
mav at FreeBSD.org
Sun Mar 31 09:30:04 UTC 2013
On 31.03.2013 08:13, Ian Smith wrote:
> 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?
Yes, I am only going to drop it from 10.x, but bug reports from 9-STABLE
users are welcome, as at some point they will become 10.x users.
More information about the freebsd-stable