From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161035AbWBYRpK (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:45:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932716AbWBYRpK (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:45:10 -0500 Received: from lucidpixels.com ([66.45.37.187]:24471 "EHLO lucidpixels.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932680AbWBYRpI (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:45:08 -0500 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:45:06 -0500 (EST) From: Justin Piszcz X-X-Sender: jpiszcz@p34 To: Mark Lord cc: David Greaves , Jeff Garzik , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, IDE/ATA development list Subject: Re: LibPATA code issues / 2.6.15.4 In-Reply-To: <440083B4.3030307@rtr.ca> Message-ID: References: <43F2050B.8020006@dgreaves.com> <200602141300.37118.lkml@rtr.ca> <440040B4.8030808@dgreaves.com> <440083B4.3030307@rtr.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Second patch fails for me. On a clean 2.6.15.4 source tree: p34:/usr/src# ls -ld linux lrwxrwxrwx 1 root src 14 2006-02-25 12:41 linux -> linux-2.6.15.4/ The one from your e-mail earlier: p34:/usr/src/linux# patch -p1 < /tmp/patch1 patching file drivers/scsi/libata-scsi.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 404 (offset -16 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 414 (offset -16 lines). Hunk #3 succeeded at 493 (offset -16 lines). Hunk #4 succeeded at 505 (offset -16 lines). Hunk #5 succeeded at 547 (offset -16 lines). Hunk #6 succeeded at 622 (offset -16 lines). p34:/usr/src/linux# patch -p1 < /tmp/12_libata_ata_opcode.patch patching file drivers/scsi/libata-core.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 245 (offset -8 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 267 (offset -8 lines). Hunk #3 succeeded at 288 (offset -8 lines). Hunk #4 succeeded at 310 (offset -8 lines). Hunk #5 succeeded at 500 (offset -8 lines). Hunk #6 FAILED at 626. 1 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file drivers/scsi/libata-core.c.rej patching file drivers/scsi/libata-scsi.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 414 (offset -24 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 493 (offset -24 lines). Hunk #3 FAILED at 505. Hunk #4 succeeded at 547 (offset -24 lines). Hunk #5 succeeded at 622 (offset -24 lines). Hunk #6 succeeded at 1308 (offset -29 lines). 1 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file drivers/scsi/libata-scsi.c.rej patching file include/linux/ata.h Hunk #1 succeeded at 239 (offset -5 lines). patching file include/linux/libata.h Hunk #1 succeeded at 368 (offset -52 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 452 (offset -60 lines). p34:/usr/src/linux# Should I be using 2.6.16-rcX? On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Mark Lord wrote: > David Greaves wrote: > .. >> Thanks Mark - I've finally gotten this patch applied. >> >> With smartd disabled and no smart commands issued, a readonly badblocks >> scan of /dev/sdb2 shows no problems and now gives: >> Feb 25 10:38:31 haze kernel: ata2: status=0x51 { DriveReady SeekComplete >> Error } >> Feb 25 10:38:32 haze kernel: ata2: no sense translation for op=0x28 >> status: 0x51 >> Feb 25 10:38:32 haze kernel: ata2: status=0x51 { DriveReady SeekComplete >> Error } >> Feb 25 10:38:35 haze kernel: ata2: no sense translation for op=0x28 >> status: 0x51 >> hundreds of times. > .. > > Mmmm.. okay, it's happening due to a SCSI READ_10 opcode, > which means it isn't being triggered by any of the FUA stuff. > > But there's still no obvious reason for the error. > The drive is basically just saying "command rejected", > and libata-scsi is translating that into "medium error" > for some unknown reason. > > Unfortunately, the design of the current libata is such that > we no longer have access to the actual ATA opcode that was rejected. > It gets overwritten by the returned drive status on completion. > > So.. I need to generate another patch for you now, to save/show > the real ATA opcode that was used to cause the errors. > My theory is that we'll discover that it is one that your drive > legitimately is rejecting (unsupported LBA48 or something..). > > But we won't know until we see the output. > > Second patch is attached: apply *in addition* to the first one. > > Cheers > >