Alan,
>How about the patch below instead? It's a bit easier to use, in that it
>doesn't require users to know about a new parameter. Also it retries at
>1-second intervals for up to 5 seconds, which makes it a little more
>flexible. If this works for you, I'll submit it for inclusion in the
Alan,
How about the patch below instead? It's a bit easier to use, in that it
doesn't require users to know about a new parameter. Also it retries at
1-second intervals for up to 5 seconds, which makes it a little more
flexible. If this works for you, I'll submit it for inclusion in the
All,
> > Can you try adding delays before, after, and inbetween the calls to
> > sd_read_capacity, sd_read_write_protect_flag, and
> sd_read_cache_type,
> > all near the end of sd_revalidate_disk?
>
> Yes, will do this and post results.
OK, it turns out that for this particular key, a two
Back again! (had a 2 day course last week).
> > There are three delays from my patch in the above list,
>
> Yes. Why are there three instead of just one? The
> sd_revalidate_disk routine should only be called once
> (although a bug in recent kernels causes it to be called twice).
Don't
Back again! (had a 2 day course last week).
There are three delays from my patch in the above list,
Yes. Why are there three instead of just one? The
sd_revalidate_disk routine should only be called once
(although a bug in recent kernels causes it to be called twice).
Don't know;
All,
Can you try adding delays before, after, and inbetween the calls to
sd_read_capacity, sd_read_write_protect_flag, and
sd_read_cache_type,
all near the end of sd_revalidate_disk?
Yes, will do this and post results.
OK, it turns out that for this particular key, a two second
Alan,
> Try putting delays at various spots in sd_revalidate_disk:
> the beginning, the middle, and the end.
OK, the attached patch works for me when sd_mod was loaded with delay_use=1.
Now I'm quite prepared to be told that this is a really horrible and
inapproprate hack (given that I am not
Alan,
Thanks very much for the input.
> > I'm trying to diagnose an issue with a USB "Memory Key"
> (128Mb Flash
> > drive) on my workstation (i386 Linux 2.6.12 kernel, using udev 058).
> >
> > When connecting the key, the kernel fails to read the
> partition table,
> > and therefore the
Alan,
Thanks very much for the input.
I'm trying to diagnose an issue with a USB Memory Key
(128Mb Flash
drive) on my workstation (i386 Linux 2.6.12 kernel, using udev 058).
When connecting the key, the kernel fails to read the
partition table,
and therefore the block device
Alan,
Try putting delays at various spots in sd_revalidate_disk:
the beginning, the middle, and the end.
OK, the attached patch works for me when sd_mod was loaded with delay_use=1.
Now I'm quite prepared to be told that this is a really horrible and
inapproprate hack (given that I am not a
Hi,
I'm trying to diagnose an issue with a USB "Memory Key" (128Mb Flash drive)
on my workstation (i386 Linux 2.6.12 kernel, using udev 058).
When connecting the key, the kernel fails to read the partition table, and
therefore the block device /dev/sda1 isn't created, so I can't mount the
Hi,
I'm trying to diagnose an issue with a USB Memory Key (128Mb Flash drive)
on my workstation (i386 Linux 2.6.12 kernel, using udev 058).
When connecting the key, the kernel fails to read the partition table, and
therefore the block device /dev/sda1 isn't created, so I can't mount the
volume.
Jens/Hari,
The patch which you both supplied does solve the problem.
I'd imagine this patch is probably not "critical" enough for a
2.6.11.x-series patch, but it would be nice to see this included in 2.6.12.
Thanks!
James Roberts-Thomson
--
A synonym is a word you use if you can't
Jens/Hari,
The patch which you both supplied does solve the problem.
I'd imagine this patch is probably not critical enough for a
2.6.11.x-series patch, but it would be nice to see this included in 2.6.12.
Thanks!
James Roberts-Thomson
--
A synonym is a word you use if you can't spell
Hi,
I've been trying to investigate an IO performance issue on my machine, as
part of this I've noticed what is (presumably only a cosmetic) issue with
the messages displayed at kernel boot-time.
In the "good old days" (i.e. older 2.6.x kernel versions), one of the many
messages displayed at
Hi,
I've been trying to investigate an IO performance issue on my machine, as
part of this I've noticed what is (presumably only a cosmetic) issue with
the messages displayed at kernel boot-time.
In the good old days (i.e. older 2.6.x kernel versions), one of the many
messages displayed at
16 matches
Mail list logo
