From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF592C4646C for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 20:57:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B26F220656 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 20:57:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1561409833; bh=pz3TyMxp0rK+lUgdIduXiQAPkiEmUPOe3XXhcswbjbc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=ld7cnCyzCpr4TiSMNLGfJZ2u+ZgwS7n+qZsvtStK0j6030MBOYgS10CDzP62DZksh lglIhXiHxiSnXVd5j2saVJ8daQWSgyZcfWFLTLjHy/SE0vsAZ1sWTKdgD+0VTc1g9y GPSme1YbcyPeygt9SFkzw//FN7MUAlCTcT6y6dxg= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726920AbfFXU5N (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:57:13 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f196.google.com ([209.85.222.196]:40971 "EHLO mail-qk1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726009AbfFXU5N (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:57:13 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f196.google.com with SMTP id c11so10885116qkk.8 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:57:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=w2+tn8HCNol89djwY+jruWYrx4o7m/kBbcrpU8XimuQ=; b=pFteJswfiqXmP9E2y19bIRdbf6yOng9N5mwW64cQveen0U2Xzs0pmgTm9NxmoLXYM2 SL8MvJufhx7I8ZQS73bMh1YppDoodts9of2LtVPzPGLDWReRERMGMcP8VMgdwJk5zZ19 UArYxFbFHHtjVEAUhLfoKb+o65U63pKwcFDUeiclxlOO24YKa2yFJrSTDLETksfPASUM NaOWsMKrsSxo/1BTdAfKitfEibXCh9cNgk+1hdJogc94tpEjck7PbYf36lTzhXctzNQo J86OviGHPzq2y/frx3RBG9JnWe4P1UPyBGzSRORittdXFIyhOb0jAlJRO/cLhOuci1vy Gtpw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=w2+tn8HCNol89djwY+jruWYrx4o7m/kBbcrpU8XimuQ=; b=NTl6YBORcPj8YszIqd/JxycronPT1wzTySFXHbw7m0YRlkuLf8g0Lmryjl3RBbh+iS MCM4n0iOpi+UqBQbu6SkI9/MD7efFZVBYXwfHoO4GaPOrG22pBPMa9fhG4PeFnVM51zZ OL9cwhLX0NjgpLJMdZpzA2Lx1bnaWJpwInmXH55YYAgMVmQ2y9y7/j+VU+Lo1fGF6X87 NvmovFMCUpJ830HONGLmY7rpDD1d2vETcU5ugCpmLK/RHShc25xIhYnILhEHNciyPZdR OhbmH0iMnpQMlbPAvFv2vxSQc8+8nAdgcYsq0Vs3OcipctzzXHHB34d+sz1UPgvXpjvl hVkA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXvRuD/fX8XWAWXYGhbmywv+WAhu1jY+TwZ06gTNB7kDR10HpkA 8jwv0Rp5J/T8gNUzDkgswpQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw5c346Egps3IaD4W6/UTZsbF4Rfui33Oju03sCni9W7DjSpeiPJio0Oro3oW30MGTUi0HrLQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:12ca:: with SMTP id e10mr68477246qkl.237.1561409832046; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c091:480::2c48]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m6sm6530877qte.17.2019.06.24.13.57.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:57:08 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Damien Le Moal Cc: Jens Axboe , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , Hannes Reinecke , "kernel-team@fb.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: don't request sense data on !ZAC ATA devices Message-ID: <20190624205708.GS657710@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> References: <20190624163250.GP657710@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Hello, Damien. On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 08:27:02PM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote: > For NCQ commands, I believe it is mandatory to request sense data for the failed > command to get the device out of error mode. So isn't this approach breaking Hah, that's a news to me. We never had that code path before ZAC support was added, so I'm kinda skeptical that'd be the case. > anything for well behaving drives ? Wouldn't it be better to blacklist the > misbehaving SSD you observed the problem with ? Provided I'm not wrong with the assumption, there's virtually no benefit in doing this and that's gonna be a *really* difficult blacklist to develop. Thanks. -- tejun