On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 12:36 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Thu, Oct 04 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 09:28:34 +0200 > > Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 04 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > > > On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:32:55 -0600 > > > > "Patro, Sumant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: FUJITA Tomonori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 5:01 PM > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > > > > > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Patro, Sumant; DL-MegaRAID > > > > > > Linux; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc9 boot failure (megaraid?) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:38:13 -0500 > > > > > > James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 20:15 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > > > > > Cc's added, the complete bug report is at > > > > > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/2/243 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 12:48:26PM -0400, Burton Windle wrote: > > > > > > > > > 2.6.23-rc9 fails to boot for me; 2.6.22.9 works fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > System is a Dell Poweredge with PERC 2/DC with RAID1 volume. > > > > > > > > >... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your report. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Diff'ing the dmesg's shows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <-- snip --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scsi0: scanning scsi channel 4 [P0] for physical devices. > > > > > > > > scsi0: scanning scsi channel 5 [P1] for physical devices. > > > > > > > > st: Version 20070203, fixed bufsize 32768, s/g segs 256 -sd > > > > > > > > 0:0:0:0: [sda] 17547264 512-byte hardware sectors (8984 MB) > > > > > > > > +sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Sector size 0 reported, assuming 512. > > > > > > > > +sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 1 512-byte hardware sectors (0 MB) > > > > > > > > sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] > > > > > > > > Asking > > > > > > > > for cache data failed sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive > > > > > > cache: write > > > > > > > > through -sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 17547264 512-byte hardware > > > > > > sectors (8984 > > > > > > > > MB) > > > > > > > > +sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Sector size 0 reported, assuming 512. > > > > > > > > +sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 1 512-byte hardware sectors (0 MB) > > > > > > > > sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] > > > > > > > > Asking > > > > > > > > for cache data failed sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive > > > > > > cache: write > > > > > > > > through > > > > > > > > sda: sda1 > > > > > > > > + sda: p1 exceeds device capacity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <-- snip --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - case MEGA_BULK_DATA: > > > > > > > > - if (scb->cmd->use_sg == 0) > > > > > > > > - length = scb->cmd->request_bufflen; > > > > > > > > - else { > > > > > > > > - struct scatterlist *sgl = > > > > > > > > - (struct scatterlist > > > > > > *)scb->cmd->request_buffer; > > > > > > > > - length = sgl->length; > > > > > > > > - } > > > > > > > > - pci_unmap_page(adapter->dev, > > > > > > > > scb->dma_h_bulkdata, > > > > > > > > - length, scb->dma_direction); > > > > > > > > - break; > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the problem piece I think. We've reintroduced a > > > > > > very old bug: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit 51c928c34fa7cff38df584ad01de988805877dba > > > > > > > Author: James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > Date: Sat Oct 1 09:38:05 2005 -0500 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [SCSI] Legacy MegaRAID: Fix READ CAPACITY > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some Legacy megaraid cards can't actually cope with the > > > > > > scatter/gather > > > > > > > version of the READ CAPACITY command (which is what we > > > > > > now send them > > > > > > > since altering all SCSI internal I/O to go via the > > > > > > block layer). Fix > > > > > > > this (and a few other broken megaraid driver > > > > > > assumptions) by sending > > > > > > > the non-sg version of the command if the sg list only > > > > > > has a single > > > > > > > element. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So what we have to do is put back the check for use_sg == 1 > > > > > > and send > > > > > > > that as a bulk transfer command. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry about this. Can this fix the problem? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c > > > > > > b/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c index 3907f67..da56163 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c > > > > > > @@ -1753,6 +1753,14 @@ mega_build_sglist(adapter_t *adapter, > > > > > > scb_t *scb, u32 *buf, u32 *len) > > > > > > > > > > > > *len = 0; > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (scsi_sg_count(cmd) == 1 && !adapter->has_64bit_addr) { > > > > > > + sg = scsi_sglist(cmd); > > > > > > + scb->dma_h_bulkdata = sg_dma_address(sg); > > > > > > + *buf = (u32)scb->dma_h_bulkdata; > > > > > > + *len = sg_dma_len(sg); > > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > > + } > > > > > > + > > > > > > scsi_for_each_sg(cmd, sg, sgcnt, idx) { > > > > > > if (adapter->has_64bit_addr) { > > > > > > scb->sgl64[idx].address = sg_dma_address(sg); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With this patch I see the correct logical disk size reported. > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > Great, thanks for testing! > > > > > > > > Can you try the following patch instead of the above patch? > > > > > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=119137033016550&w=2 > > > > > > > > > > > > I know the changes are pretty trivial and it should work... > > > > > > Tomo, this is the patch I added. > > > > Thanks. I thought that it will be sent via scsi-misc because the scsi > > accessor patch introduced this bug. But either is ok with me. > > If it only affects the driver _after_ the scsi accessor patch and as > such doesn't screw over git-block, then I'll drop it for sure.
No, this is a release critical fix ... I'll roll it up and send it in for 2.6.23. James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
