[cc'ing ATA gurus]
Hello, again.
Okay, there are two different problems here, so I was confused a bit,
but now I see what's going on.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ata2: SATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xE400 ctl 0xE002 bmdma 0xDC08 irq 10
> scsi2 : ata_piix
> ata1.00: CFA, max PIO4, 8005536 sectors: LBA
> at
[cc'ing linux-ide and Albert, Hi!]
William Thompson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:22:21PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> William Thompson wrote:
>>> I've been playing with libata on a few machines and I found that this
>>> machine
>>> (An old Dell Dimension L866r) gives me this when it loads an
Hello, Art Haas.
Art Haas wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Back in the beginning of February I was sent a patch to test during the
> time the CD-ROM identification bug was affecting my computer. The
> first posting of the patch appeared on Feb. 3 with Tejun Heo writing:
Ah.. I completely forgot about this one.
Mark Lord wrote:
> Mark Lord wrote:
>> Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> Mark Lord wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
> ## Test stuck DRQ on VIA-sata (disk):
>
> ata1.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x2 frozen
> ata1.00: cmd ec/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/00 tag 0 cdb 0x0 data 0
Robert Hancock wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Stefan wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> yesterday I upgraded kernel 2.6.19 to 2.6.20 (gentoo kernel). Now my
>>> box locks up about 10 min after boot.
>>> After that I tested with a vanilla 2.6.21.1 it shows the same behavior.
>>> I'm attaching a kern log fi
Mark Lord wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
## Test stuck DRQ on VIA-sata (disk):
ata1.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x2 frozen
ata1.00: cmd ec/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/00 tag 0 cdb 0x0 data 0
res 58/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/a0
Tejun Heo wrote:
> Stefan wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> yesterday I upgraded kernel 2.6.19 to 2.6.20 (gentoo kernel). Now my
>> box locks up about 10 min after boot.
>> After that I tested with a vanilla 2.6.21.1 it shows the same behavior.
>> I'm attaching a kern log file from the 2.6.20. The 2.
I was working with integrating SMART status into my Nagios checks, and ran into
some sata_nv weirdness on two different machines (Tyan S2865 and S2927).
Each machine has a pair of matching disks.
On the latter, it's also occasionally lost the disks and hard-locked the box if
smartd did the '-S on'
Tejun Heo wrote:
Stefan wrote:
Hi folks,
yesterday I upgraded kernel 2.6.19 to 2.6.20 (gentoo kernel). Now my
box locks up about 10 min after boot.
After that I tested with a vanilla 2.6.21.1 it shows the same behavior.
I'm attaching a kern log file from the 2.6.20. The 2.6.21.1 locked up so
h
After upgrading my kernel to 2.6.20.6 recently, I
started having random drive errors on both ext3 and xfs
filesystems. On boot, my two data drives (one ide and one sata)
would come up with fsck errors. Somehow the root drive was
spared. One of the first symptoms of the problem was
"illegal fil
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Jeff Garzik (8):
libata/IDE: remove combined mode quirk
You can't just remove the "combined_mode=" kernel parameter or
every Linux user who uses that will get an unbootable kernel
with no good way of diagnosin
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> Jeff Garzik (8):
>>> libata/IDE: remove combined mode quirk
>>
>> You can't just remove the "combined_mode=" kernel parameter or
>> every Linux user who uses that will get an unbootable kernel
>> with no good way of diagnosing
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
Yeah the kernel will boot but the hd performance is sh*t on my laptop. I
am running FC6 with
kernel 2.6.21 and without the combined_mode setting my disk performance
goes down to a
whopping 1.25mb/sec from 44mb/sec when I boot with combined_mode=libata.
Then
Simplify UltraDMA mode filtering in the driver:
- make use of the newly introduced 'udma_mask' field of 'ide_pci_device_t' to
set the correct hwif->ultra_mask, modifying init_setup_hpt366() to select
the correct mask based on the chip revision;
- replace 'max_mode' field of the 'struct hpt_in
Stephen Clark wrote:
Yeah the kernel will boot but the hd performance is sh*t on my laptop. I
am running FC6 with
kernel 2.6.21 and without the combined_mode setting my disk performance
goes down to a
whopping 1.25mb/sec from 44mb/sec when I boot with combined_mode=libata.
It make my
system un
> Yeah the kernel will boot but the hd performance is sh*t on my laptop. I
> am running FC6 with
> kernel 2.6.21 and without the combined_mode setting my disk performance
> goes down to a
> whopping 1.25mb/sec from 44mb/sec when I boot with combined_mode=libata.
Then something is very wrong wit
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Jeff Garzik (8):
libata/IDE: remove combined mode quirk
You can't just remove the "combined_mode=" kernel parameter or
every Linux user who uses that will get an unbootable kernel
with no good way of diagnosing the
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Jeff Garzik (8):
libata/IDE: remove combined mode quirk
You can't just remove the "combined_mode=" kernel parameter or
every Linux user who uses that will get an unbootable kernel
with no good way of diagnosing the problem. It should still
be accept
Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Jeff Garzik (8):
> libata/IDE: remove combined mode quirk
You can't just remove the "combined_mode=" kernel parameter or
every Linux user who uses that will get an unbootable kernel
with no good way of diagnosing the problem. It should still
be accepted and just print
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Is this a bug in the VIA driver?
>
> Sample errors:
>
> ata3.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x2
> ata3.00: (BMDMA stat 0x4)
> ata3.00: cmd ca/00:08:08:80:04/00:00:00:00:00/e0 tag 0 cdb 0x0 data 4096 out
> res 53/84:00:0f:80:04/00:00:00:00:00/e0
Stefan wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> yesterday I upgraded kernel 2.6.19 to 2.6.20 (gentoo kernel). Now my
> box locks up about 10 min after boot.
> After that I tested with a vanilla 2.6.21.1 it shows the same behavior.
> I'm attaching a kern log file from the 2.6.20. The 2.6.21.1 locked up so
> hard, t
Mark Lord wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm... that's very weird. I've never seen such problems. The report
>> messages are printed in ata_eh_report() and both the cmd and res lines
>> are printed by single invocation to printk(). Is the log captured using
>> serial console? I think it could
Hello,
Geoff Kuchera wrote:
> Symptoms: The system finds all the drives and everything appears to work
> correctly, but when I partition and make a file system on the drive and
> then copy files to the drive some of the files become corrupted in the
> transfer process.
What do you mean by 'the f
Hello,
Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> @@ -647,12 +650,10 @@ static void pdc_error_intr(struct ata_po
> | PDC_PCI_SYS_ERR | PDC1_PCI_PARITY_ERR))
> ac_err_mask |= AC_ERR_HOST_BUS;
>
> - if (sata_scr_valid(ap))
> - ehi->serror |= pdc_sata_scr_read
Hi.
Back in the beginning of February I was sent a patch to test during the
time the CD-ROM identification bug was affecting my computer. The
first posting of the patch appeared on Feb. 3 with Tejun Heo writing:
> Hello, Art Haas, Alan.
>
> Okay, here's another try at fixing the detection bug.
Tejun Heo wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
## Test stuck DRQ on VIA-sata (disk):
ata1.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x2 frozen
ata1.00: cmd ec/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/00 tag 0 cdb 0x0 data 0
res 58/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/a0 Emask 0x2 (HSM vio
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30 2007, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 30 2007, Benny Halevy wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 18:48 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>>> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Apr 30 2007, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 30 2007, Benny Halevy wrote:
> >> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Apr 29 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 18:48 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> >> From: Boaz Harr
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30 2007, Benny Halevy wrote:
>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 29 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 18:48 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>> From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: [PATCH 4/4] bidi s
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you write:
>> I am also having problems with this device, but on both an ICH5 and on a
>> VIA pre-AHCI SATA controller. I just tried 2.6.21-rc7 - it fails in exactly
>> same way as with 2.6.20.
>
>Can you please post full dmesg?
Two attachments - one ICH5, one
On Mon, Apr 30 2007, Mark Lord wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> >So basically just add a struct request pointer, so you can do rq =
> >rq->next_rq or something for the next data phase. I bet this would be a
> >LOT less invasive as well, and we can get by with a few helpers to
> >support it.
>
> He
Jens Axboe wrote:
So basically just add a struct request pointer, so you can do rq =
rq->next_rq or something for the next data phase. I bet this would be a
LOT less invasive as well, and we can get by with a few helpers to
support it.
Hey, I want a way to issue those (linked requests) from us
Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hmmm... Once properly initialized, ahci is highly unlikely to cause
> runaway IRQs which results in nobody cared. It has proper IRQ mask and
> pending bits allowing the driver to reliably detect when and why the
> controller is raising interrupt and disable it if necessary. Ca
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 18:48 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>>> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] bidi support: bidirectional request
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:33:28 +0300
>
On Mon, Apr 30 2007, Benny Halevy wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 29 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 18:48 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> >>> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [PATCH 4/4] bidi support: bidirectional
On Sun, Apr 29 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 18:48 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > > From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: [PATCH 4/4] bidi support: bidirectional request
> > > Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:33:28 +0300
> > >
> > >> diff
36 matches
Mail list logo
