From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [Bug #12263] Sata soft reset filling log Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:19:53 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <200902152221.43834.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090215223045.GC29300@elte.hu> <200902160012.57584.rjw@sisk.pl> <499983DF.5050503@ru.mvista.com> <49998480.3090408@ru.mvista.com> <499986D0.3000205@ru.mvista.com> <4999BD1A.1060101@gawab.com> <4999C195.5050905@ru.mvista.com> <4999DD31.4010504@gawab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4999DD31.4010504-u1xxEuL7cY4AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Justin Madru Cc: Sergei Shtylyov , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Linux IDE , Alan Cox , Larry Finger , Mikael Pettersson List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Justin Madru wrote: > Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > > > > If 12609 is truly a post-2.6.28 regression and 12263 is post-2.6.27 > > regresssion, this just cannot be. > > Maybe the reporter of #12609 didn't notice/test kernels 28-rc1 to 28. Or maybe > the difference in hardware is > the issue, but the bug is still the same. Don't know. Sorry Justin, you must be confused: as Sergei says, #12609 and #12263 can only be different. I was one of the reporters of #12609, and I do know it's a post-2.6.28 regression (and Larry said so too), and one fix (not the preferred fix) is to revert the ata_bmdma32_port_ops from 2.6.29-rc, and the preferred fix is to improve the ata_sff_data_xfer32() introduced in 2.6.29-rc1. 2.6.28 does not contain any ata_bmdma32_port_ops, nor ata_sff_data_xfer32(), not did 2.6.28-rc1 contain them. So it is impossible for the reversion of the patch that introduced them to fix any problem on 2.6.28. I'm quite prepared to believe that your #12263 manifests similarly to #12609, and that a tip tree which contains a fix for #12609 contains a fix for #12263; but please, those bugs are not the same, and they don't have the same fix. Hugh From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751586AbZBQLWc (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:22:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751862AbZBQLWF (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:22:05 -0500 Received: from extu-mxob-2.symantec.com ([216.10.194.135]:48351 "EHLO extu-mxob-2.symantec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751728AbZBQLWD (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:22:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:19:53 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@blonde.anvils To: Justin Madru cc: Sergei Shtylyov , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Linux IDE , Alan Cox , Larry Finger , Mikael Pettersson Subject: Re: [Bug #12263] Sata soft reset filling log In-Reply-To: <4999DD31.4010504@gawab.com> Message-ID: References: <200902152221.43834.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090215223045.GC29300@elte.hu> <200902160012.57584.rjw@sisk.pl> <499983DF.5050503@ru.mvista.com> <49998480.3090408@ru.mvista.com> <499986D0.3000205@ru.mvista.com> <4999BD1A.1060101@gawab.com> <4999C195.5050905@ru.mvista.com> <4999DD31.4010504@gawab.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Justin Madru wrote: > Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > > > > If 12609 is truly a post-2.6.28 regression and 12263 is post-2.6.27 > > regresssion, this just cannot be. > > Maybe the reporter of #12609 didn't notice/test kernels 28-rc1 to 28. Or maybe > the difference in hardware is > the issue, but the bug is still the same. Don't know. Sorry Justin, you must be confused: as Sergei says, #12609 and #12263 can only be different. I was one of the reporters of #12609, and I do know it's a post-2.6.28 regression (and Larry said so too), and one fix (not the preferred fix) is to revert the ata_bmdma32_port_ops from 2.6.29-rc, and the preferred fix is to improve the ata_sff_data_xfer32() introduced in 2.6.29-rc1. 2.6.28 does not contain any ata_bmdma32_port_ops, nor ata_sff_data_xfer32(), not did 2.6.28-rc1 contain them. So it is impossible for the reversion of the patch that introduced them to fix any problem on 2.6.28. I'm quite prepared to believe that your #12263 manifests similarly to #12609, and that a tip tree which contains a fix for #12609 contains a fix for #12263; but please, those bugs are not the same, and they don't have the same fix. Hugh