[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1207234978.9155.13.camel@localhost>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:02:58 +0200
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, k-ueda@...jp.nec.com,
j-nomura@...jp.nec.com, jens.axboe@...cle.com, zaitcev@...hat.com
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at drivers/block/ub.c:820!
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 17:15 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> OK So first this confirms that for ages the ub.c driver was leaking
> BIO's
> on first connection. Just that it was never noticed before.
>
> or that we have a BLOCK_PC at hand but before the 7d699baf patch
> we completed with - rq->hard_nr_sectors << 9 - where now
> blk_rq_bytes(rq)
> will return 218 which is less. Could you also put rq->hard_nr_sectors
> in the print above?
>
> Did you mange to find what is that 218 bytes command. Put a WARN_ON(1)
> in ub_request_fn_1 for any command that has a blk_rq_bytes(rq) of 218
> so we'll see who issues these commands. And what is the real bug.
I've added a WARN_ON(blk_rq_bytes(rq) == 218) right before the
ub_submit_scsi in ub_request_fn_1. ub_end_rq still reports the odd size
but I get nothing from ub_request_fn_1. Interesting.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
--
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