[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071003090058R.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 09:00:58 +0900
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To: James.Bottomley@...elEye.com
Cc: bunk@...nel.org, bwindle@...t.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp,
sumant.patro@....com, megaraidlinux@....com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc9 boot failure (megaraid?)
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:38:13 -0500
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com> 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 <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>
> 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 <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>
>
> 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);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists