On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 11:32 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:27:57 -0500
>
> > On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 08:12 -0700, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > > Yes. The 3w-.c driver changed between 2.6.18 and 2.6.20 but
> > > nothing jumps out
From: James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:27:57 -0500
> On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 08:12 -0700, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > Yes. The 3w-.c driver changed between 2.6.18 and 2.6.20 but
> > nothing jumps out to my untrained eyes. Here's the diff:
> > Also, I should mention
James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 12:32 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> > That last line should be:
> > request_buffer[7] = 10; /* minimum size per SPC: 18 bytes */
>
> Er, yes, I'm afraid when I see n-7 I always think n is the lenght, not n
> is the last byte ...
OK.
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 12:32 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> That last line should be:
> request_buffer[7] = 10; /* minimum size per SPC: 18 bytes */
Er, yes, I'm afraid when I see n-7 I always think n is the lenght, not n
is the last byte ...
James
-
To unsubscribe from this
James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 08:51 -0700, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>> James Bottomley wrote:
>>
>>> It's actually a long standing bug in the 3w- driver. Apparently it
>>> assumes request sense is always the use_sg == 0 case. This is what it
>>> does on a request sense:
>>>
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 08:51 -0700, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
>
> >It's actually a long standing bug in the 3w- driver. Apparently it
> >assumes request sense is always the use_sg == 0 case. This is what it
> >does on a request sense:
>
> >static int
James Bottomley wrote:
>It's actually a long standing bug in the 3w- driver. Apparently it
>assumes request sense is always the use_sg == 0 case. This is what it
>does on a request sense:
>static int tw_scsiop_request_sense(TW_Device_Extension *tw_dev, int request_id)
>{
>
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 08:12 -0700, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> Yes. The 3w-.c driver changed between 2.6.18 and 2.6.20 but
> nothing jumps out to my untrained eyes. Here's the diff:
> Also, I should mention that the working kernel is a fedora
> rpm (2.6.18-1.2798.fc6) so I don't know what patches
James Bottomley said:
> On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 19:21 -0700, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > 2.6.20.4 with your patch dies in the memcpy (as does 21-gitN)
> >
> > 2.6.20.4 without your patch dies in the subsequent __free_page
> > with a null pointer ref at 000...008
> >
> > James should I try your
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 19:21 -0700, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> 2.6.20.4 with your patch dies in the memcpy (as does 21-gitN)
>
> 2.6.20.4 without your patch dies in the subsequent __free_page
> with a null pointer ref at 000...008
>
> James should I try your posted patch? On which kernel?
Well,
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 19:21 -0700, Andrew Burgess wrote:
2.6.20.4 with your patch dies in the memcpy (as does 21-gitN)
2.6.20.4 without your patch dies in the subsequent __free_page
with a null pointer ref at 000...008
James should I try your posted patch? On which kernel?
Well, mine will
James Bottomley said:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 19:21 -0700, Andrew Burgess wrote:
2.6.20.4 with your patch dies in the memcpy (as does 21-gitN)
2.6.20.4 without your patch dies in the subsequent __free_page
with a null pointer ref at 000...008
James should I try your posted patch? On
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 08:12 -0700, Andrew Burgess wrote:
Yes. The 3w-.c driver changed between 2.6.18 and 2.6.20 but
nothing jumps out to my untrained eyes. Here's the diff:
Also, I should mention that the working kernel is a fedora
rpm (2.6.18-1.2798.fc6) so I don't know what patches are
James Bottomley wrote:
It's actually a long standing bug in the 3w- driver. Apparently it
assumes request sense is always the use_sg == 0 case. This is what it
does on a request sense:
static int tw_scsiop_request_sense(TW_Device_Extension *tw_dev, int request_id)
{
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 08:51 -0700, Andrew Burgess wrote:
James Bottomley wrote:
It's actually a long standing bug in the 3w- driver. Apparently it
assumes request sense is always the use_sg == 0 case. This is what it
does on a request sense:
static int
James Bottomley wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 08:51 -0700, Andrew Burgess wrote:
James Bottomley wrote:
It's actually a long standing bug in the 3w- driver. Apparently it
assumes request sense is always the use_sg == 0 case. This is what it
does on a request sense:
static int
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 12:32 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
That last line should be:
request_buffer[7] = 10; /* minimum size per SPC: 18 bytes */
Er, yes, I'm afraid when I see n-7 I always think n is the lenght, not n
is the last byte ...
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
James Bottomley wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 12:32 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
That last line should be:
request_buffer[7] = 10; /* minimum size per SPC: 18 bytes */
Er, yes, I'm afraid when I see n-7 I always think n is the lenght, not n
is the last byte ...
OK. That
From: James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:27:57 -0500
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 08:12 -0700, Andrew Burgess wrote:
Yes. The 3w-.c driver changed between 2.6.18 and 2.6.20 but
nothing jumps out to my untrained eyes. Here's the diff:
Also, I should mention that the
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 11:32 -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:27:57 -0500
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 08:12 -0700, Andrew Burgess wrote:
Yes. The 3w-.c driver changed between 2.6.18 and 2.6.20 but
nothing jumps out to my
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:36 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Andrew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:13:27 -0700
>
> > David, do you see any other problems with scsi_send_eh_cmnd?
> >
> > I've switched back to 2.6.18 which seems to not oops
> > and am happy to try
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 17:15 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> This won't work I believe.
>
> There are cases that use smaller sense buffers than the minimum
> specified by the SCSI layer.
>
> One example is that do_sr_ioctl() stuff when the cgc passed
> in has a sense buffer. That will only be as
From: James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:02:19 -0500
> On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:36 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Andrew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:13:27 -0700
> >
> > > David, do you see any other problems with scsi_send_eh_cmnd?
>
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:36 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Andrew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:13:27 -0700
>
> > David, do you see any other problems with scsi_send_eh_cmnd?
> >
> > I've switched back to 2.6.18 which seems to not oops
> > and am happy to try
From: Andrew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:13:27 -0700
> David, do you see any other problems with scsi_send_eh_cmnd?
>
> I've switched back to 2.6.18 which seems to not oops
> and am happy to try patches.
Does 2.6.20 with my patch OOPS too? Does reverting my patch
make
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>Andrew Burgess wrote:
>
>> Apr 5 03:45:16 cichlid kernel: 3w-: scsi2: Command failed: status =
>> 0xc7, flags = 0x7f, unit #4.
>> Apr 5 03:45:20 cichlid kernel: 3w-: scsi2: Command failed: status =
>> 0xc7, flags = 0x80, unit #4.
>> Apr 5 03:47:20 cichlid kernel:
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Andrew Burgess wrote:
Apr 5 03:45:16 cichlid kernel: 3w-: scsi2: Command failed: status =
0xc7, flags = 0x7f, unit #4.
Apr 5 03:45:20 cichlid kernel: 3w-: scsi2: Command failed: status =
0xc7, flags = 0x80, unit #4.
Apr 5 03:47:20 cichlid kernel: 3w-:
From: Andrew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:13:27 -0700
David, do you see any other problems with scsi_send_eh_cmnd?
I've switched back to 2.6.18 which seems to not oops
and am happy to try patches.
Does 2.6.20 with my patch OOPS too? Does reverting my patch
make the
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:36 -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Andrew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:13:27 -0700
David, do you see any other problems with scsi_send_eh_cmnd?
I've switched back to 2.6.18 which seems to not oops
and am happy to try patches.
Does
From: James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:02:19 -0500
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:36 -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Andrew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:13:27 -0700
David, do you see any other problems with scsi_send_eh_cmnd?
I've
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 17:15 -0700, David Miller wrote:
This won't work I believe.
There are cases that use smaller sense buffers than the minimum
specified by the SCSI layer.
One example is that do_sr_ioctl() stuff when the cgc passed
in has a sense buffer. That will only be as large as
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:36 -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Andrew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:13:27 -0700
David, do you see any other problems with scsi_send_eh_cmnd?
I've switched back to 2.6.18 which seems to not oops
and am happy to try patches.
Does
32 matches
Mail list logo
