Re: [PATCH] Re: [bug] ata subsystem related crash with latest -git

[Olof Johansson]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 06:42:46AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> That should work as well. WRT ata_sg_is_last(), if we go ahead with my
>>>> recent sg chaining updates, we can keep the test as it would be a single
>>>> conditional and not require any looping.
>>>> Let me know when you have tested this!
>>> The patch I attached to the last email got both sata_mv test boxes 
>>> working reliably (so far).
>>>
>>> I worked up a patch that kills ata_sg_is_last() (plus the 
>>> max_phys_segments sata_mv fix), see attached.  I'm thinking this is what 
>>> I like to see in upstream.
>> Great!
>>> Of course, this doesn't explain why ata_sg_is_last() was broken, but 
>>> since it's working _and_ slightly more efficient, I don't really care :)
>> Tomo and I agreed to kill sg_last() a few days ago anyways, so this is
>> perfectly fine with me.
>
> Yep, the [attached] patch that kills ata_sg_is_last() is working here on 
> both machines that were previously croaking.
>
> It would be nice to get pdc_adma, sata_sil24 and ipr it-works test done, 
> but IMO the patch is pretty straightforward and should be OK.

Tested-by: Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx>

Looks ok on SATA_SIL24 and SATA_MV here on PPC (together with Jens' latest
patch). Both barfed before.


Thanks!

-Olof
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/