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];
> > > > > > [email protected]; [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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
