Hi Ching,
Context: when a drive finally failed in my JBOD array, I discovered that
the whole ARC1880X controller would timeout, disabling access to any drive,
which is kind of sad.
I've performed a firmware upgrade and added back the failing drive to see
what happens with a newer device firmware
Hi Ching,
Context: when a drive finally failed in my JBOD array, I discovered that
the whole ARC1880X controller would timeout, disabling access to any drive,
which is kind of sad.
I've performed a firmware upgrade and added back the failing drive to see
what happens with a newer device firmware
Hi,
After a kernel update from v4.9.10 to v4.10.3, any time I bring out the gimp,
the i915 driver NULL-pointer dereferences something in list_move_tail(),
somewhere in i915_gem_evict_for_vma().
I'm providing the kernel log, if more is needed (say you aren't
aware of this regression) I'm
Hi,
After a kernel update from v4.9.10 to v4.10.3, any time I bring out the gimp,
the i915 driver NULL-pointer dereferences something in list_move_tail(),
somewhere in i915_gem_evict_for_vma().
I'm providing the kernel log, if more is needed (say you aren't
aware of this regression) I'm
, and even with IOMMU. Nice!
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Carretero
---
drivers/pci/quirks.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/quirks.c b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
index f6a42bc..43c0ea0 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/quirks.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
@@ -3380,6 +3380,8
be supported but not tested here.
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Carretero
---
drivers/ata/ahci.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/ata/ahci.c b/drivers/ata/ahci.c
index 6070781..ff5543f 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/ahci.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/ahci.c
@@ -449,6 +449,8 @@ static const struct
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 14:41:40 -0400
Tejun Heo wrote:
> Ugh... build failure from missing ')'. Please at least try to compile
> the changes before submitting patches.
Argh. Sorry, I hadn't used git send-mail and missed the copy/paste...
Shall I send a corrected version or you fixed it?
--
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 14:41:40 -0400
Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
Ugh... build failure from missing ')'. Please at least try to compile
the changes before submitting patches.
Argh. Sorry, I hadn't used git send-mail and missed the copy/paste...
Shall I send a corrected version or you fixed
be supported but not tested here.
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Carretero cj...@zougloub.eu
---
drivers/ata/ahci.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/ata/ahci.c b/drivers/ata/ahci.c
index 6070781..ff5543f 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/ahci.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/ahci.c
@@ -449,6 +449,8
, and even with IOMMU. Nice!
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Carretero cj...@zougloub.eu
---
drivers/pci/quirks.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/quirks.c b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
index f6a42bc..43c0ea0 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/quirks.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
@@ -3380,6 +3380,8
On Fri, 30 May 2014 09:13:43 -0500
Roger Heflin wrote:
> I had a 9230...
> [...]
> Supplier support "claimed" it to be a Linux AHCI bug as the "claim"
> that their board correctly supports AHCI, even though all other AHCI
> boards work right in this exact same use case in the exact same
>
On Fri, 30 May 2014 20:37:58 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> We've switched to a 9235 instead which seems to work fine.
Weird (I hadn't seen that you reported the 9235 working...), I have
IOMMU problems with a 9235...
What system are you running it on (when you say "power box", is it a
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:57:37 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> I've been trying a 9230 on a power box here (a 9235 on the same
> machine works fine) and it blows up with an IOMMU violation early
> during init.
Hi,
That's https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42679
if you haven't
be supported but not tested here.
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Carretero
---
drivers/ata/ahci.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/ata/ahci.c b/drivers/ata/ahci.c
index 6070781..ff5543f 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/ahci.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/ahci.c
@@ -449,6 +449,8 @@ static const struct
be supported but not tested here.
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Carretero cj...@zougloub.eu
---
drivers/ata/ahci.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/ata/ahci.c b/drivers/ata/ahci.c
index 6070781..ff5543f 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/ahci.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/ahci.c
@@ -449,6 +449,8
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:57:37 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
I've been trying a 9230 on a power box here (a 9235 on the same
machine works fine) and it blows up with an IOMMU violation early
during init.
Hi,
That's
On Fri, 30 May 2014 20:37:58 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
We've switched to a 9235 instead which seems to work fine.
Weird (I hadn't seen that you reported the 9235 working...), I have
IOMMU problems with a 9235...
What system are you running it on (when you say
On Fri, 30 May 2014 09:13:43 -0500
Roger Heflin rogerhef...@gmail.com wrote:
I had a 9230...
[...]
Supplier support claimed it to be a Linux AHCI bug as the claim
that their board correctly supports AHCI, even though all other AHCI
boards work right in this exact same use case in the exact
Hi,
I encountered the same problem with another device.
If possible, it would be nice to pick Marius's patch for stable
kernels (tested here on v3.12.6).
There are chances that MacOSX is affected by a similar issue,
so if anybody has friends there...
Thanks,
--
Jérôme
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014
Hi,
I encountered the same problem with another device.
If possible, it would be nice to pick Marius's patch for stable
kernels (tested here on v3.12.6).
There are chances that MacOSX is affected by a similar issue,
so if anybody has friends there...
Thanks,
--
Jérôme
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014
Hi,
I am seeing that with an acquisition board:
[27044.406737] usb 4-4.4: usb_probe_device
[27044.406739] usb 4-4.4: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice
[27044.406803] usb 4-4.4: Successful Endpoint Configure command
[27044.418946] usb 4-4.4: Successful evaluate context command
[27044.421725]
Hi,
I am seeing that with an acquisition board:
[27044.406737] usb 4-4.4: usb_probe_device
[27044.406739] usb 4-4.4: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice
[27044.406803] usb 4-4.4: Successful Endpoint Configure command
[27044.418946] usb 4-4.4: Successful evaluate context command
[27044.421725]
ERTOOTH 990FX
[CASEID=WTM201208072118475482]
Apply date : 8/7/2012 1:18:47 PM(UTC Time)
[Contact Information]
*Name : Jérôme Carretero
*Email Address : cj...@zougloub.eu
[Product Information]
*Product Type : Motherboard
*Product Model : SABERTOOTH 990FX
*Product S/N : MB-1234567890
[CASEID=WTM201208072118475482]
Apply date : 8/7/2012 1:18:47 PM(UTC Time)
[Contact Information]
*Name : Jérôme Carretero
*Email Address : cj...@zougloub.eu
[Product Information]
*Product Type : Motherboard
*Product Model : SABERTOOTH 990FX
*Product S/N : MB-1234567890
[Motherboard
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:32:08 -0400
Jérôme Carretero wrote:
> For troubleshooting purposes I edited over your patch.
> So far:
> [...]
> Maybe I can get more...
With the following:
diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
index 2dc29f5..46729f3 100644
--
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:16:27 -0400
Jérôme Carretero wrote:
> - I can bisect the patch further down (might be a bit silly because
> I don't quite understand it),
For troubleshooting purposes I edited over your patch.
So far:
- (in arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c) when making efi_ge
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:25:33 +0100
"Jan Beulich" wrote:
> >>> On 06.08.12 at 15:16, JérômeCarretero wrote:
> > If it helps:
> >
> > - I can bisect the patch further down (might be a bit silly because
> > I don't quite understand it),
> > - you can suggest some modifications and at least I
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:08:03 +0100
"Jan Beulich" wrote:
> with the change at hand I merely tried to be proactive).
Jan,
If it helps:
- I can bisect the patch further down (might be a bit silly because
I don't quite understand it),
- you can suggest some modifications and at least I can test
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:08:03 +0100
Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com wrote:
with the change at hand I merely tried to be proactive).
Jan,
If it helps:
- I can bisect the patch further down (might be a bit silly because
I don't quite understand it),
- you can suggest some modifications and at
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:25:33 +0100
Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com wrote:
On 06.08.12 at 15:16, JérômeCarretero cj...@zougloub.eu wrote:
If it helps:
- I can bisect the patch further down (might be a bit silly because
I don't quite understand it),
- you can suggest some modifications
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:16:27 -0400
Jérôme Carretero cj...@zougloub.eu wrote:
- I can bisect the patch further down (might be a bit silly because
I don't quite understand it),
For troubleshooting purposes I edited over your patch.
So far:
- (in arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c) when making
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:32:08 -0400
Jérôme Carretero cj...@zougloub.eu wrote:
For troubleshooting purposes I edited over your patch.
So far:
[...]
Maybe I can get more...
With the following:
diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
index 2dc29f5..46729f3 100644
Hi,
My PC (AMD Bulldozer + Asus SABERTOOTH 990FX) booted fine from UEFI
and it broke between v3.5 and v3.6-rc1.
Other machines with old BIOSes booted fine so I looked into EFI-related
patches trying to revert them, because I didn't know what else to do.
Bingo, bacef661: x86-64/efi: Use EFI to
Hi,
My PC (AMD Bulldozer + Asus SABERTOOTH 990FX) booted fine from UEFI
and it broke between v3.5 and v3.6-rc1.
Other machines with old BIOSes booted fine so I looked into EFI-related
patches trying to revert them, because I didn't know what else to do.
Bingo, bacef661: x86-64/efi: Use EFI to
34 matches
Mail list logo
