Jeff Mitchell wrote:
I'm seeing errors in dmesg and the like. It appears to be somewhat
similar to the issue reported here:
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2007/8/25/164711 except
that my machine doesn't freeze, and everything seems normal --
hopefully nothing like silent corrupti
00:01:00:00/40 Emask 0x2 (HSM violation)
ata1.00: cmd 61/08:10:a6:fb:c5/00:00:01:00:00/40 tag 2 cdb 0x0 data 4096 out
res 50/00:08:46:4c:d4/00:00:01:00:00/40 Emask 0x2 (HSM violation)
ata1.00: cmd 61/08:18:fe:00:c8/00:00:01:00:00/40 tag 3 cdb 0x0 data 4096 out
res 50/00:08:46:4c:
Alan Cox wrote:
Why 512 words ?
Though I have queued Mark's patch to be applied, my gut feeling would
lean towards a single DRQ block, rather than 512.
Why not just work from the old IDE code.
ata_altstatus(ap);
- ata_chk_status(ap);
+ ata_drain_fifo(ap, qc);
ap->ops->c
Mark Lord wrote:
I think this original patch still applies cleanly on at least 2.6.23-rc7.
Drain up to 512 words from host/bridge FIFO on stuck DRQ HSM violation,
rather than just getting stuck there forever.
Signed-off-by: Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
--- old/drivers/ata/libata
> > Why 512 words ?
>
> Though I have queued Mark's patch to be applied, my gut feeling would
> lean towards a single DRQ block, rather than 512.
Why not just work from the old IDE code.
>
>
> >>ata_altstatus(ap);
> >> - ata_chk_status(ap);
> >> + ata_drain_fifo(ap, qc);
> >
> > ap->ops
Alan Cox wrote:
Drain up to 512 words from host/bridge FIFO on stuck DRQ HSM violation,
rather than just getting stuck there forever.
Why 512 words ?
Though I have queued Mark's patch to be applied, my gut feeling would
lean towards a single DRQ block, rather tha
Alan Cox wrote:
Drain up to 512 words from host/bridge FIFO on stuck DRQ HSM violation,
rather than just getting stuck there forever.
Why 512 words ?
ata_altstatus(ap);
- ata_chk_status(ap);
+ ata_drain_fifo(ap, qc);
ap->ops->cleanup();
might be wiser
Actua
> Drain up to 512 words from host/bridge FIFO on stuck DRQ HSM violation,
> rather than just getting stuck there forever.
Why 512 words ?
> ata_altstatus(ap);
> - ata_chk_status(ap);
> + ata_drain_fifo(ap, qc);
ap->ops->cleanup();
might be wiser
-
To unsub
> Nacked-by: scripts/checkpatch.pl
Mark, it seems you'll have to get ACK from this dude first. :-)
--
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 02:48:28 -0700 Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Lord wrote:
> > Drain up to 512 words from host/bridge FIFO on stuck DRQ HSM violation,
> > rather than just getting stuck there forever.
> >
> > Signed-Off-By: Mark Lord <[EMAIL
Mark Lord wrote:
> Drain up to 512 words from host/bridge FIFO on stuck DRQ HSM violation,
> rather than just getting stuck there forever.
>
> Signed-Off-By: Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from
can you be
bothered to regenerate the patch and post it one more time (again)? It
seems we all agree the update is needed.
I think this original patch still applies cleanly on at least 2.6.23-rc7.
Drain up to 512 words from host/bridge FIFO on stuck DRQ HSM violation,
rather than just getting s
Tejun Heo wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
I think there have been enough cases where this draining was necessary.
IIRC, ata_piix was involved in those cases, right? If so, can you
please submit a patch which applies this only to affected controllers?
I don't feel too confident about applying this to al
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Alan Cox wrote:
I think there have been enough cases where this draining was necessary.
IIRC, ata_piix was involved in those cases, right? If so, can you
please submit a patch which applies this only to affected controllers?
I don't fee
Tejun Heo wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
I think there have been enough cases where this draining was necessary.
IIRC, ata_piix was involved in those cases, right? If so, can you
please submit a patch which applies this only to affected controllers?
I don't feel too confident about applying this to al
Alan Cox wrote:
>> I think there have been enough cases where this draining was necessary.
>> IIRC, ata_piix was involved in those cases, right? If so, can you
>> please submit a patch which applies this only to affected controllers?
>> I don't feel too confident about applying this to all SFF co
> I think there have been enough cases where this draining was necessary.
> IIRC, ata_piix was involved in those cases, right? If so, can you
> please submit a patch which applies this only to affected controllers?
> I don't feel too confident about applying this to all SFF controllers.
Old IDE
Mark Lord wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Mark Lord wrote:
>>> I reported a very similar bug back a few releases ago.
>>> Anyone who wants to try it themselves, can do this with hdparm-7.7 (from
>>> sourceforge):
>>>
>>>hdparm --drq-hsm-error /dev/sda
>>>
>>> Whether or not it hangs t
No, i did not manage to improve (it should NOT be a dangerous error BTW).
I simply think that this issue is because of buggy firmware, so i
posted to linux-ide a patch to blacklist this hard disk from using NCQ
(because it is triggering spurious completions).
I don't know what the "blacklisting pol
Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
Mark Lord wrote:
I reported a very similar bug back a few releases ago.
Anyone who wants to try it themselves, can do this with hdparm-7.7 (from
sourceforge):
hdparm --drq-hsm-error /dev/sda
Whether or not it hangs the machine does depend upon exactly which SATA
LLD
Hello,
Mark Lord wrote:
> I reported a very similar bug back a few releases ago.
> Anyone who wants to try it themselves, can do this with hdparm-7.7 (from
> sourceforge):
>
>hdparm --drq-hsm-error /dev/sda
>
> Whether or not it hangs the machine does depend upon exactly which SATA
> LLD is
Bryan Woods wrote:
> The full dmesg and hdparm -I command output are attached.
>
> I have received word from the vendor that the Stardom 2611 will do
> RAID0 or 1 under windows, but only RAID1 under Linux. (Their manual
> said it worked with Linux but failed to mention the RAID mode
> restriction
e Barracuda 7200 10"s. Here's the device:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.synetic.net/Synetic-Products/Stardoms/SR-2611-SA/Stardom-2611.htm
>>>
>>> During the install and at different points in the process I get an "HSM
>>> violat
xception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x2 frozen
ata3.00: cmd ec/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/40 tag 0 cdb 0x0 data 0
res 58/00:01:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/40 Emask 0x2 (HSM violation)
ata3: soft resetting port
ata3.00: configured for UDMA/100
ata3: EH complete
sd 2:0:0:0: [sda]
ng "stuck DRQ" host state machine error
do_drq_hsm_error: Success
ata status=0x58 ata error=0x00
ata3.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x2 frozen
ata3.00: cmd ec/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/40 tag 0 cdb 0x0 data 0
res 58/00:01:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/40 Em
e:
http://www.synetic.net/Synetic-Products/Stardoms/SR-2611-SA/Stardom-2611.htm
During the install and at different points in the process I get an "HSM
violation" and the system becomes unresponsive. It looks like a similar situation to:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/6/195
Will more r
s one SATA drive. If it matters, the
> >> underlying HDs are "Seagate Barracuda 7200 10"s. Here's the device:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.synetic.net/Synetic-Products/Stardoms/SR-2611-SA/Stardom-2611.htm
> >>
> >> During the inst
gt;
>> http://www.synetic.net/Synetic-Products/Stardoms/SR-2611-SA/Stardom-2611.htm
>>
>> During the install and at different points in the process I get an "HSM
>> violation" and the system becomes unresponsive. It looks like a similar
>> situation to:
>>
>&
> During the install and at different points in the process I get an "HSM
> violation" and the system becomes unresponsive. It looks like a similar
> situation to:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/6/195
>
> Will more recent kernels work with this hardware (should I k
underlying HDs are "Seagate Barracuda 7200 10"s.
Here's the device:
http://www.synetic.net/Synetic-Products/Stardoms/SR-2611-SA/Stardom-2611.htm
During the install and at different points in the process I get an "HSM
violation" and the system becomes unresponsive
Enrico Sardi wrote:
This is the result of hdparm -I /dev/sda:
/dev/sda:
ATA device, with non-removable media
Model Number: Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00
Just in case, you didn't add "Hitachi " in the front of Model Number
string, right? It looks a bit odd because all other HTS541
Enrico Sardi wrote:
> This is the result of hdparm -I /dev/sda:
>
> /dev/sda:
>
> ATA device, with non-removable media
>Model Number: Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00
Just in case, you didn't add "Hitachi " in the front of Model Number
string, right? It looks a bit odd because all other HTS541
Andrew Morton wrote:
> That great spew of "set_level status: 0" is fairly annoying and useless.
I don't know where those are coming from. It's not from libata.
--
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More m
Robert Hancock wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:32:22 +0200 Enrico Sardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> [ 61.176000] ata1.00: exception Emask 0x2 SAct 0x2 SErr 0x0 action
>>> 0x2 frozen
>>> [ 61.176000] ata1.00: (spurious completions during NCQ issue=0x0
>>> SAct=0x2 F
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:32:22 +0200 Enrico Sardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ 61.176000] ata1.00: exception Emask 0x2 SAct 0x2 SErr 0x0 action 0x2
frozen
[ 61.176000] ata1.00: (spurious completions during NCQ issue=0x0
SAct=0x2 FIS=005040a1:0004)
..
It's not obv
04)
> [ 61.176000] ata1.00: cmd 60/08:08:37:cc:00/00:00:0c:00:00/40 tag 1
> cdb 0x0 data 4096 in
> [ 61.176000] res 50/00:08:27:3c:ed/00:00:0b:00:00/40 Emask
> 0x2 (HSM violation)
> [ 61.488000] ata1: soft resetting port
> [ 61.66] ata1: SATA li
:00:00/40 Emask
0x2 (HSM violation)
[ 61.488000] ata1: soft resetting port
[ 61.66] ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
[ 61.66] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 312581808,
hpa_sectors = 312581808
[ 61.66] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 312581808
37 matches
Mail list logo
