Re: [BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 09:54 -0600, Omkhar Arasaratnam wrote: > Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > The 2.6.11.3 kernel with the 2.6.10 driver seems to fail with the same > sym2 driver error - so I suppose it goes deeper than the driver itself. > Let's move that to linuxppc64-dev and drop the CC-list. Last message on this thread. Ben. - 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/
Re: [BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 11:05 -0600, Omkhar Arasaratnam wrote: 2.6.10 seems to have a different kernel panic which I'm investigating (could be a problem with my ramdisk as it happens in my linuxrc). So long story short the 2.6.10 sym driver looks ok. Can you try 2.6.11 with the 2.6.10 sym driver ? Ben. The 2.6.11.3 kernel with the 2.6.10 driver seems to fail with the same sym2 driver error - so I suppose it goes deeper than the driver itself. O. - 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/
Re: [BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 11:05 -0600, Omkhar Arasaratnam wrote: 2.6.10 seems to have a different kernel panic which I'm investigating (could be a problem with my ramdisk as it happens in my linuxrc). So long story short the 2.6.10 sym driver looks ok. Can you try 2.6.11 with the 2.6.10 sym driver ? Ben. I copied over the code from drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/ on 2.6.10 to the 2.6.11 dir. The machine didn't come back up after the reboot - I will have to wait till Monday to see the error as I do not have remote console access to the machine - I will report my findings then. Omkhar - 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/
Re: [BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 11:05 -0600, Omkhar Arasaratnam wrote: 2.6.10 seems to have a different kernel panic which I'm investigating (could be a problem with my ramdisk as it happens in my linuxrc). So long story short the 2.6.10 sym driver looks ok. Can you try 2.6.11 with the 2.6.10 sym driver ? Ben. I will try that and let you know how it works out. Omkhar. - 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/
Re: [BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 11:05 -0600, Omkhar Arasaratnam wrote: > 2.6.10 seems to have a different kernel panic which I'm investigating > (could be a problem with my ramdisk as it happens in my linuxrc). So > long story short the 2.6.10 sym driver looks ok. Can you try 2.6.11 with the 2.6.10 sym driver ? Ben. - 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/
Re: [BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
James Bottomley wrote: On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 12:17 +, Matthew Wilcox wrote: Heh, the devel version of sym2 (that isn't submitted yet because it depends on a few changes to the SPI transport that James hasn't integrated yet) would probably fix this as it doesn't call iounmap() until the driver exits. They're integrated into the scsi-misc-2.6 tree, so if you send in the sym2 patch to linux-scsi, everything should still work... James 2.6.10 seems to have a different kernel panic which I'm investigating (could be a problem with my ramdisk as it happens in my linuxrc). So long story short the 2.6.10 sym driver looks ok. Omkhar - 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/
Re: [BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 12:17 +, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > Heh, the devel version of sym2 (that isn't submitted yet because > it depends on a few changes to the SPI transport that James hasn't > integrated yet) would probably fix this as it doesn't call iounmap() > until the driver exits. They're integrated into the scsi-misc-2.6 tree, so if you send in the sym2 patch to linux-scsi, everything should still work... 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/
Re: [BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 04:59:43PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > Ok, we have it working here on a similar machine with 2.6.11 and failing > in a similar way with bk which is why I asked ;) > > The bk problem is found & fixed here tho. I'll send a patch later, it's > a bug with ppc64 iounmap() not properly flushing the hash table after > the set_pte_at() patch due to some crap in our custom implementation of > that guy. Heh, the devel version of sym2 (that isn't submitted yet because it depends on a few changes to the SPI transport that James hasn't integrated yet) would probably fix this as it doesn't call iounmap() until the driver exits. -- "Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain - 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/
Re: [BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 19:47 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Omkhar Arasaratnam wrote:
> >
> > I confirmed that this occurs with the 2.6.11 code straight from
> > kernel.org Here is an error from the bringup:
>
> So if 2.6.9 works, and 2.6.11 does not, can you check 2.6.10? And perhaps
> hunt it down even more, to a -rc release?
>
> > sym0: No NVRAM, ID 7, Fast-80 LVD, parity checking
> > CACHE TEST FAILED: DMA error (dstat=0xa0) .sym0: CACHE INCORRECTLY
> > CONFIGURED
> > sym0: giving up ...
>
> There are certainly sym changes in there too since 2.6.9, let's see if
> James or Willy have any suggestions. It might not be ppc64-specific.
Ok, we have it working here on a similar machine with 2.6.11 and failing
in a similar way with bk which is why I asked ;)
The bk problem is found & fixed here tho. I'll send a patch later, it's
a bug with ppc64 iounmap() not properly flushing the hash table after
the set_pte_at() patch due to some crap in our custom implementation of
that guy.
Here's the patch, but I want to get rid of that stuff anyway (at least
make unmap_vm_area take the "mm", or rather make an unmap_vm_area_mm()
and make unmap_vm_area() just call it and then use that instead of our
own implementation, but I'm waiting for Hugh cleanup to get in before
touching any of this).
--
This patch fixes a bug in ppc64 local implementation of iounmap() that
would cause it to incorrectly flush the hash table since the changes to
set_pte have been applied.
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: working-2.6/arch/ppc64/mm/init.c
===
--- working-2.6.orig/arch/ppc64/mm/init.c 2005-03-07 13:06:23.0
+1100
+++ working-2.6/arch/ppc64/mm/init.c2005-03-10 12:59:50.0 +1100
@@ -288,7 +288,7 @@
static void unmap_im_area_pte(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long address,
unsigned long size)
{
- unsigned long end;
+ unsigned long base, end;
pte_t *pte;
if (pmd_none(*pmd))
@@ -300,6 +300,7 @@
}
pte = pte_offset_kernel(pmd, address);
+ base = address & PMD_MASK;
address &= ~PMD_MASK;
end = address + size;
if (end > PMD_SIZE)
@@ -307,7 +308,7 @@
do {
pte_t page;
- page = ptep_get_and_clear(&ioremap_mm, address, pte);
+ page = ptep_get_and_clear(&ioremap_mm, base + address, pte);
address += PAGE_SIZE;
pte++;
if (pte_none(page))
@@ -321,7 +322,7 @@
static void unmap_im_area_pmd(pgd_t *dir, unsigned long address,
unsigned long size)
{
- unsigned long end;
+ unsigned long base, end;
pmd_t *pmd;
if (pgd_none(*dir))
@@ -333,13 +334,14 @@
}
pmd = pmd_offset(dir, address);
+ base = address & PGDIR_MASK;
address &= ~PGDIR_MASK;
end = address + size;
if (end > PGDIR_SIZE)
end = PGDIR_SIZE;
do {
- unmap_im_area_pte(pmd, address, end - address);
+ unmap_im_area_pte(pmd, base + address, end - address);
address = (address + PMD_SIZE) & PMD_MASK;
pmd++;
} while (address < end);
Ben.
-
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/
Re: [BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 06:25:56PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > BTW, Linus: Any chance you ever change something to version or > > extraversion in bk just after a release ? I know I already ask and it > > degenerated into a flamefest, and I don't know if that is specifically > > the case now, but I keep getting report of people saying "I have a bug > > in 2.6.xx" while in fact, they have some kind of bk clone of sometime > > after 2.6.xx... > > The answer is the same: I'd still like to have somebody (preferably Sam) > who is comfortable with all the build scripts get a revision-control- > specific version at build-time, so that BK users would get the top-of-tree > key value, and other people could get some CVS revision or something. I have a patch somewhere in my inbox, and got one from Ryan yesterday also. I will see if I during the weekend find some time to look at it. Sam - 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/
Re: [BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 06:25:56PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > BTW, Linus: Any chance you ever change something to version or
> > extraversion in bk just after a release ? I know I already ask and it
> > degenerated into a flamefest, and I don't know if that is specifically
> > the case now, but I keep getting report of people saying "I have a bug
> > in 2.6.xx" while in fact, they have some kind of bk clone of sometime
> > after 2.6.xx...
>
> The answer is the same: I'd still like to have somebody (preferably Sam)
> who is comfortable with all the build scripts get a revision-control-
> specific version at build-time, so that BK users would get the top-of-tree
> key value, and other people could get some CVS revision or something.
I've got something that fixes up the version by adding -BK and then 8
hex characters from the md5 hash of the top of tree changeset key.
I was starting to work on stuffing that same value into a /proc file so
that you can figure out what the tree looked like, but at the moment,
you at least get a semi-random string appended to the version.
I resent the patch yesterday, but I'll put it here, too:
> I have this dim memory that Sam might even have had some early trials, but
> maybe thats just wishful thinking.. Sam?
I think that was my patch - Sam was going to look at it, but I suspect
it got lost in more interesting things. :)
(I sent a better described version to Andrew yesterday, if you want to
grab that description and use it instead.)
Signed-Off-By: Ryan Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -Nru a/Makefile b/Makefile
--- a/Makefile 2005-03-09 02:51:15 -05:00
+++ b/Makefile 2005-03-09 02:51:15 -05:00
@@ -550,6 +550,24 @@
#exportINSTALL_PATH=/boot
+# If CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO is set, we automatically perform some tests
+# and try to determine if the current source tree is a release tree, of any
sort,
+# or if is a pure development tree.
+# A 'release tree' is any tree with a BitKeeper TAG associated with it.
+# The primary goal of this is to make it safe for a native BitKeeper user to
+# build a release tree (i.e, 2.6.9) and also to continue developing against the
+# current Linus tree, without having the Linus tree overwrite the 2.6.9 tree
+# when installed.
+#
+# (In the future, CVS and SVN support will be added as well.)
+
+ifeq ($(CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO),y)
+ ifeq ($(shell ls -d $(srctree)/BitKeeper
2>/dev/null),$(srctree)/BitKeeper)
+ localversion-bk := $(shell
$(srctree)/scripts/setlocalversion.sh $(srctree) $(objtree))
+ LOCALVERSION := $(LOCALVERSION)$(localversion-bk)
+ endif
+endif
+
#
# INSTALL_MOD_PATH specifies a prefix to MODLIB for module directory
# relocations required by build roots. This is not defined in the
diff -Nru a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
--- a/init/Kconfig 2005-03-09 02:51:15 -05:00
+++ b/init/Kconfig 2005-03-09 02:51:15 -05:00
@@ -69,6 +69,18 @@
object and source tree, in that order. Your total string can
be a maximum of 64 characters.
+config LOCALVERSION_AUTO
+ bool "Automatically append version information to the version string"
+ default y
+ help
+ This will try to automatically determine if the current tree is a
+ release tree by looking for BitKeeper tags that belong to the
+ current top of tree revision.
+ A string of the format -BK will be added to the
+ localversion. The string generated by this will be appended
+ after any matching localversion* files, and after the
+ value set in CONFIG_LOCALVERSION
+
config SWAP
bool "Support for paging of anonymous memory (swap)"
depends on MMU
diff -Nru a/scripts/setlocalversion b/scripts/setlocalversion
--- /dev/null Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 196900
+++ b/scripts/setlocalversion 2005-03-09 02:51:15 -05:00
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+#!/usr/bin/perl
+# Copyright 2004 - Ryan Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL v2
+
+use strict;
+use warnings;
+use Digest::MD5;
+require 5.006;
+
+if (@ARGV != 2) {
+ print <
+EOT
+ exit(1);
+}
+
+my $debug = 0;
+
+my ($srctree,$objtree) = @ARGV;
+
+my @LOCALVERSIONS = ();
+
+# BitKeeper Version Checks
+
+# We are going to use the following commands to try and determine if
+# this repository is at a Version boundary (i.e, 2.6.10 vs 2.6.10 + some
patches)
+# We currently assume that all meaningful version boundaries are marked by a
tag.
+# We don't care what the tag is, just that something exists.
+
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/dev/linux/local$ T=`bk changes -r+ -k`
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/dev/linux/local$ bk prs -h -d':TAG:\n' -r$T
+
+sub do_bk_checks {
+ chdir($srctree);
+ my $changeset = `bk changes -r+ -k`;
+ chomp $changeset;
+ my $tag = `bk prs -h -d':TAG:' -r'$changeset'`;
+
+ printf("ChangeSet Key = '%s'\nTAG = '%s'\n", $changeset, $tag) if
($debug > 0);
+
+ if (length
Re: [BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
Linus Torvalds wrote: There are certainly sym changes in there too since 2.6.9, let's see if James or Willy have any suggestions. It might not be ppc64-specific. Linus I have tried with 2.6.10, this appears to fail as well. Unfortunately I don't have console access right now so I will have confirm the message in the am. I'll start bisecting patches once we confirm. Omkhar - 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/
Re: [BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Omkhar Arasaratnam wrote: > > I confirmed that this occurs with the 2.6.11 code straight from > kernel.org Here is an error from the bringup: So if 2.6.9 works, and 2.6.11 does not, can you check 2.6.10? And perhaps hunt it down even more, to a -rc release? > sym0: No NVRAM, ID 7, Fast-80 LVD, parity checking > CACHE TEST FAILED: DMA error (dstat=0xa0) .sym0: CACHE INCORRECTLY CONFIGURED > sym0: giving up ... There are certainly sym changes in there too since 2.6.9, let's see if James or Willy have any suggestions. It might not be ppc64-specific. Linus - 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/
Re: [BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
Omkhar Arasaratnam wrote: Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Are you sure it's plain 2.6.11 and not some bk clone of after 2.6.11 was released ? Ben - I am in the process of downloading a clean tarball from kernel.org to be 100% certain. I confirmed that this occurs with the 2.6.11 code straight from kernel.org Here is an error from the bringup: sym0: No NVRAM, ID 7, Fast-80 LVD, parity checking CACHE TEST FAILED: DMA error (dstat=0xa0) .sym0: CACHE INCORRECTLY CONFIGURED sym0: giving up ... ideas? Omkhar - 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/
Re: [BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Are you sure it's plain 2.6.11 and not some bk clone of after 2.6.11 was released ? Ben - I am in the process of downloading a clean tarball from kernel.org to be 100% certain. - 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/
Re: [BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > BTW, Linus: Any chance you ever change something to version or > extraversion in bk just after a release ? I know I already ask and it > degenerated into a flamefest, and I don't know if that is specifically > the case now, but I keep getting report of people saying "I have a bug > in 2.6.xx" while in fact, they have some kind of bk clone of sometime > after 2.6.xx... The answer is the same: I'd still like to have somebody (preferably Sam) who is comfortable with all the build scripts get a revision-control- specific version at build-time, so that BK users would get the top-of-tree key value, and other people could get some CVS revision or something. I don't want to tag things just randomly, especially as it would be very error-prone (read: I'd forget). A script that looks at the top revision, and if it's not a tag, takes the key value and appends it to the build version seems to be The Right Thing (tm). I have this dim memory that Sam might even have had some early trials, but maybe thats just wishful thinking.. Sam? Linus - 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/
Re: [BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 19:51 -0600, Omkhar Arasaratnam wrote: > Seems with 2.6.11 the sym53c8xx kernel module incorrectly identifies the > cache being misconfigured on a p630 (ppc64, POWER4+). 2.6.9 correctly > brings up this adaptor as does AIX with absolutely no indication of a > misconfigured cache. > > Doing a simple diff I see ALOT of changes between 2.6.9 and 2.6.11 > pertaining to this module. Any ideas? Are you sure it's plain 2.6.11 and not some bk clone of after 2.6.11 was released ? I just found a bug in the ppc64 ioremap code that got triggered by the set_pte_at() patch that went into bk after 2.6.11 and that triggers exactly that error, but I couldn't see anything wrong in 2.6.11 proper. BTW, Linus: Any chance you ever change something to version or extraversion in bk just after a release ? I know I already ask and it degenerated into a flamefest, and I don't know if that is specifically the case now, but I keep getting report of people saying "I have a bug in 2.6.xx" while in fact, they have some kind of bk clone of sometime after 2.6.xx... Ben. - 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/
[BUG] 2.6.11- sym53c8xx Broken on pp64
Seems with 2.6.11 the sym53c8xx kernel module incorrectly identifies the cache being misconfigured on a p630 (ppc64, POWER4+). 2.6.9 correctly brings up this adaptor as does AIX with absolutely no indication of a misconfigured cache. Doing a simple diff I see ALOT of changes between 2.6.9 and 2.6.11 pertaining to this module. Any ideas? O - 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/
