From: Brian King <brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, wayneb@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
mbizon@freebox.fr,
jgarzik@pobox.comWayne Boyer <wayneb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata/sas: only set FROZEN flag if new EH is supported
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:05:41 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E039C95.3070907@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110623171502.GA11855@us.ibm.com>
On 06/23/2011 12:15 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 23.06.2011 [14:42:00 +1000], Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 14:31 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 15:30 -0500, Brian King wrote:
>>>> Looks good to me. Jeff/Tejun - any issues with merging this?
>>>
>>> BTW. Current upstream with that patch applied on a machine here leads to
>>> several oddities, I don't know at this point whether any of that is
>>> actually a regression :
>>
>> Ooops... pressed "send" too quickly. Here's a log excerpt with some
>> comments:
>
> Hrm, I didn't see any of this on my box, which I thought was the same as
> yours :)
>
>> ipr: IBM Power RAID SCSI Device Driver version: 2.5.2 (April 27, 2011)
>> ipr 0000:04:00.0: Found IOA with IRQ: 129
>> ipr 0000:04:00.0: Initializing IOA.
>> ipr 0000:04:00.0: Starting IOA initialization sequence.
>> ipr 0000:04:00.0: Adapter firmware version: 04220029
>> ipr 0000:04:00.0: IOA initialized.
>> scsi0 : IBM 2B4C Storage Adapter
>> scsi 0:0:4:0: Direct-Access IBM ST9300603SS BB09 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
>> scsi scan: INQUIRY result too short (5), using 36
>>
>> -> Are these odd INQUIRY results expected ?
Looking at the log, my guess is that we are dealing with a zero buffer. If we were
to get an all zero buffer on the Inquiry, we would think it was a Direct-Access
device with an inquiry response buffer of 5 bytes in length.
>> scsi 0:0:5:0: Direct-Access PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> scsi 0:0:6:0: Direct-Access IBM ST9300603SS BB09 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
>> scsi 0:0:7:0: Direct-Access IBM ST9300603SS BB09 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
>> scsi scan: INQUIRY result too short (5), using 36
>> scsi 0:0:18:0: Direct-Access PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
I'm guessing this should really be an Enclosure device here rather than a disk,
which would be symptomatic of the all zero inquiry buffer.
>> scsi 0:2:18:0: Enclosure IBM PSBPD6E4A 3GSAS 0109 PQ: 0 ANSI: 4
>> scsi: unknown device type 31
>> scsi 0:255:255:255: No Device IBM 2B4C001SISIOA 0150 PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>>
>> -> The above looks odd, not sure what it means
>
> The "unknown device type"? I see it all the time on lots of different
> machines.
That is normal and expected on an ipr adapter. The unknown device seen on every ipr
adapter at SCSI bus/target/lun 255:255:255 is the adapter itself. It is used by
the RAID management tools in Linux to do things like RAID configuration via SG_IO.
>
>> ipr 0000:05:00.0: Found IOA with IRQ: 130
>> ipr 0000:05:00.0: Initializing IOA.
>> scsi 0:254:0:0: Processor IBM 57CB001SISIOA 0150 PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> ipr 0000:05:00.0: Starting IOA initialization sequence.
>> ipr 0000:05:00.0: Adapter firmware version: 04220029
>> ipr 0000:05:00.0: IOA initialized.
>> scsi1 : IBM 57CB Storage Adapter
>> scsi scan: INQUIRY result too short (5), using 36
>> scsi 1:0:4:0: Direct-Access PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> scsi 1:0:5:0: Direct-Access IBM ST9300603SS BB09 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
>> scsi scan: INQUIRY result too short (5), using 36
>> scsi 1:0:6:0: Direct-Access PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> scsi 1:0:7:0: Direct-Access IBM ST9300603SS BB09 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
>> scsi 1:0:18:0: Enclosure IBM PSBPD6E4A 3GSAS 0109 PQ: 0 ANSI: 4
>> scsi: On host 1 channel 0 id 18 only 511 (max_scsi_report_luns) of 402653184 luns reported, try increasing max_scsi_report_luns.
>> scsi: host 1 channel 0 id 18 lun 0xc0000007f01e810f has a LUN larger than currently supported.
>>
>> -> Now that looks horribly wrong... that LUN number looks like a kernel pointer
>
> Yeah, that's weird.
>
>> scsi scan: INQUIRY result too short (5), using 36
>> scsi 1:2:18:0: Direct-Access PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> ata1.00: ATAPI: IBM RMBO0040532, SA61, max UDMA/100
>> ata1.00: failed to IDENTIFY (device reports invalid type, err_mask=0x0)
>> ata1.00: revalidation failed (errno=-22)
>> ata1.00: disabled
>>
>> -> So SATA works "better" with the patch but doesn't actually work properly :-)
>>
>> scsi_alloc_sdev: Allocation failure during SCSI scanning, some SCSI devices might not be configured
>>
>> -> That error could give us more info... not sure what it means, we do have plenty of
>> memory...
>
> That message is sort of strange. It's not necessarily referring to
> memory allocation failing, but the port allocation failing in the SCSI
> code. And that just means an error, like the failed to IDENTIFY above,
> is occurring in the allocation path. It *can* also mean memory
> allocation failure, I think, just not in this case.
>
> I don't know much about the following errors, though, sorry.
>
> -Nish
>
>> scsi 1:8:0:0: Enclosure IBM VSBPD6E4B 3GSAS 01 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2
>> scsi: unknown device type 31
>> scsi 1:255:255:255: No Device IBM 57CB001SISIOA 0150 PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> work_for_cpu used greatest stack depth: 9520 bytes left
>> st: Version 20101219, fixed bufsize 32768, s/g segs 256
>> sd 0:0:4:0: [sda] 585937500 512-byte logical blocks: (300 GB/279 GiB)
>> sd 0:0:5:0: [sdb] 585937500 512-byte logical blocks: (300 GB/279 GiB)
>> sd 0:0:6:0: [sdc] 585937500 512-byte logical blocks: (300 GB/279 GiB)
>> sd 0:0:7:0: [sdd] 585937500 512-byte logical blocks: (300 GB/279 GiB)
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] READ CAPACITY failed
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Result: hostbyte=DID_OK driverbyte=DRIVER_SENSE
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Sense Key : Illegal Request [current]
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Add. Sense: Invalid command operation code
>>
>> -> Any idea what's up with that guy ?
If this guy is really an enclosure, this is the response you would get
on a Read Capacity.
>>
>> sd 0:0:4:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0
>> sd 0:0:5:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off
>> sd 0:0:5:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Test WP failed, assume Write Enabled
>> sd 0:0:6:0: Attached scsi generic sg2 type 0
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Asking for cache data failed
>> sd 0:0:7:0: Attached scsi generic sg3 type 0
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Assuming drive cache: write through
>> sd 1:2:18:0: [sdj] READ CAPACITY failed
>> sd 1:2:18:0: [sdj] Result: hostbyte=DID_OK driverbyte=DRIVER_SENSE
>> sd 1:2:18:0: [sdj] Sense Key : Illegal Request [current]
>> sd 1:2:18:0: [sdj] Add. Sense: Invalid command operation code
>>
>> -> And this one ?
Same here.
When did this last work on this system? It seems like this is completely
separate from the libata issue.
-Brian
--
Brian King
Linux on Power Virtualization
IBM Linux Technology Center
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Brian King <brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Wayne Boyer <wayneb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
jgarzik@pobox.com, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
mbizon@freebox.fr, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata/sas: only set FROZEN flag if new EH is supported
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:05:41 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E039C95.3070907@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110623171502.GA11855@us.ibm.com>
On 06/23/2011 12:15 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 23.06.2011 [14:42:00 +1000], Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 14:31 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 15:30 -0500, Brian King wrote:
>>>> Looks good to me. Jeff/Tejun - any issues with merging this?
>>>
>>> BTW. Current upstream with that patch applied on a machine here leads to
>>> several oddities, I don't know at this point whether any of that is
>>> actually a regression :
>>
>> Ooops... pressed "send" too quickly. Here's a log excerpt with some
>> comments:
>
> Hrm, I didn't see any of this on my box, which I thought was the same as
> yours :)
>
>> ipr: IBM Power RAID SCSI Device Driver version: 2.5.2 (April 27, 2011)
>> ipr 0000:04:00.0: Found IOA with IRQ: 129
>> ipr 0000:04:00.0: Initializing IOA.
>> ipr 0000:04:00.0: Starting IOA initialization sequence.
>> ipr 0000:04:00.0: Adapter firmware version: 04220029
>> ipr 0000:04:00.0: IOA initialized.
>> scsi0 : IBM 2B4C Storage Adapter
>> scsi 0:0:4:0: Direct-Access IBM ST9300603SS BB09 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
>> scsi scan: INQUIRY result too short (5), using 36
>>
>> -> Are these odd INQUIRY results expected ?
Looking at the log, my guess is that we are dealing with a zero buffer. If we were
to get an all zero buffer on the Inquiry, we would think it was a Direct-Access
device with an inquiry response buffer of 5 bytes in length.
>> scsi 0:0:5:0: Direct-Access PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> scsi 0:0:6:0: Direct-Access IBM ST9300603SS BB09 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
>> scsi 0:0:7:0: Direct-Access IBM ST9300603SS BB09 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
>> scsi scan: INQUIRY result too short (5), using 36
>> scsi 0:0:18:0: Direct-Access PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
I'm guessing this should really be an Enclosure device here rather than a disk,
which would be symptomatic of the all zero inquiry buffer.
>> scsi 0:2:18:0: Enclosure IBM PSBPD6E4A 3GSAS 0109 PQ: 0 ANSI: 4
>> scsi: unknown device type 31
>> scsi 0:255:255:255: No Device IBM 2B4C001SISIOA 0150 PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>>
>> -> The above looks odd, not sure what it means
>
> The "unknown device type"? I see it all the time on lots of different
> machines.
That is normal and expected on an ipr adapter. The unknown device seen on every ipr
adapter at SCSI bus/target/lun 255:255:255 is the adapter itself. It is used by
the RAID management tools in Linux to do things like RAID configuration via SG_IO.
>
>> ipr 0000:05:00.0: Found IOA with IRQ: 130
>> ipr 0000:05:00.0: Initializing IOA.
>> scsi 0:254:0:0: Processor IBM 57CB001SISIOA 0150 PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> ipr 0000:05:00.0: Starting IOA initialization sequence.
>> ipr 0000:05:00.0: Adapter firmware version: 04220029
>> ipr 0000:05:00.0: IOA initialized.
>> scsi1 : IBM 57CB Storage Adapter
>> scsi scan: INQUIRY result too short (5), using 36
>> scsi 1:0:4:0: Direct-Access PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> scsi 1:0:5:0: Direct-Access IBM ST9300603SS BB09 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
>> scsi scan: INQUIRY result too short (5), using 36
>> scsi 1:0:6:0: Direct-Access PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> scsi 1:0:7:0: Direct-Access IBM ST9300603SS BB09 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
>> scsi 1:0:18:0: Enclosure IBM PSBPD6E4A 3GSAS 0109 PQ: 0 ANSI: 4
>> scsi: On host 1 channel 0 id 18 only 511 (max_scsi_report_luns) of 402653184 luns reported, try increasing max_scsi_report_luns.
>> scsi: host 1 channel 0 id 18 lun 0xc0000007f01e810f has a LUN larger than currently supported.
>>
>> -> Now that looks horribly wrong... that LUN number looks like a kernel pointer
>
> Yeah, that's weird.
>
>> scsi scan: INQUIRY result too short (5), using 36
>> scsi 1:2:18:0: Direct-Access PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> ata1.00: ATAPI: IBM RMBO0040532, SA61, max UDMA/100
>> ata1.00: failed to IDENTIFY (device reports invalid type, err_mask=0x0)
>> ata1.00: revalidation failed (errno=-22)
>> ata1.00: disabled
>>
>> -> So SATA works "better" with the patch but doesn't actually work properly :-)
>>
>> scsi_alloc_sdev: Allocation failure during SCSI scanning, some SCSI devices might not be configured
>>
>> -> That error could give us more info... not sure what it means, we do have plenty of
>> memory...
>
> That message is sort of strange. It's not necessarily referring to
> memory allocation failing, but the port allocation failing in the SCSI
> code. And that just means an error, like the failed to IDENTIFY above,
> is occurring in the allocation path. It *can* also mean memory
> allocation failure, I think, just not in this case.
>
> I don't know much about the following errors, though, sorry.
>
> -Nish
>
>> scsi 1:8:0:0: Enclosure IBM VSBPD6E4B 3GSAS 01 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2
>> scsi: unknown device type 31
>> scsi 1:255:255:255: No Device IBM 57CB001SISIOA 0150 PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> work_for_cpu used greatest stack depth: 9520 bytes left
>> st: Version 20101219, fixed bufsize 32768, s/g segs 256
>> sd 0:0:4:0: [sda] 585937500 512-byte logical blocks: (300 GB/279 GiB)
>> sd 0:0:5:0: [sdb] 585937500 512-byte logical blocks: (300 GB/279 GiB)
>> sd 0:0:6:0: [sdc] 585937500 512-byte logical blocks: (300 GB/279 GiB)
>> sd 0:0:7:0: [sdd] 585937500 512-byte logical blocks: (300 GB/279 GiB)
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] READ CAPACITY failed
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Result: hostbyte=DID_OK driverbyte=DRIVER_SENSE
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Sense Key : Illegal Request [current]
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Add. Sense: Invalid command operation code
>>
>> -> Any idea what's up with that guy ?
If this guy is really an enclosure, this is the response you would get
on a Read Capacity.
>>
>> sd 0:0:4:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0
>> sd 0:0:5:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off
>> sd 0:0:5:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Test WP failed, assume Write Enabled
>> sd 0:0:6:0: Attached scsi generic sg2 type 0
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Asking for cache data failed
>> sd 0:0:7:0: Attached scsi generic sg3 type 0
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Assuming drive cache: write through
>> sd 1:2:18:0: [sdj] READ CAPACITY failed
>> sd 1:2:18:0: [sdj] Result: hostbyte=DID_OK driverbyte=DRIVER_SENSE
>> sd 1:2:18:0: [sdj] Sense Key : Illegal Request [current]
>> sd 1:2:18:0: [sdj] Add. Sense: Invalid command operation code
>>
>> -> And this one ?
Same here.
When did this last work on this system? It seems like this is completely
separate from the libata issue.
-Brian
--
Brian King
Linux on Power Virtualization
IBM Linux Technology Center
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Brian King <brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, wayneb@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
mbizon@freebox.fr, jgarzik@pobox.com,
Wayne Boyer <wayneb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata/sas: only set FROZEN flag if new EH is supported
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:05:41 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E039C95.3070907@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110623171502.GA11855@us.ibm.com>
On 06/23/2011 12:15 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 23.06.2011 [14:42:00 +1000], Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 14:31 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 15:30 -0500, Brian King wrote:
>>>> Looks good to me. Jeff/Tejun - any issues with merging this?
>>>
>>> BTW. Current upstream with that patch applied on a machine here leads to
>>> several oddities, I don't know at this point whether any of that is
>>> actually a regression :
>>
>> Ooops... pressed "send" too quickly. Here's a log excerpt with some
>> comments:
>
> Hrm, I didn't see any of this on my box, which I thought was the same as
> yours :)
>
>> ipr: IBM Power RAID SCSI Device Driver version: 2.5.2 (April 27, 2011)
>> ipr 0000:04:00.0: Found IOA with IRQ: 129
>> ipr 0000:04:00.0: Initializing IOA.
>> ipr 0000:04:00.0: Starting IOA initialization sequence.
>> ipr 0000:04:00.0: Adapter firmware version: 04220029
>> ipr 0000:04:00.0: IOA initialized.
>> scsi0 : IBM 2B4C Storage Adapter
>> scsi 0:0:4:0: Direct-Access IBM ST9300603SS BB09 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
>> scsi scan: INQUIRY result too short (5), using 36
>>
>> -> Are these odd INQUIRY results expected ?
Looking at the log, my guess is that we are dealing with a zero buffer. If we were
to get an all zero buffer on the Inquiry, we would think it was a Direct-Access
device with an inquiry response buffer of 5 bytes in length.
>> scsi 0:0:5:0: Direct-Access PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> scsi 0:0:6:0: Direct-Access IBM ST9300603SS BB09 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
>> scsi 0:0:7:0: Direct-Access IBM ST9300603SS BB09 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
>> scsi scan: INQUIRY result too short (5), using 36
>> scsi 0:0:18:0: Direct-Access PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
I'm guessing this should really be an Enclosure device here rather than a disk,
which would be symptomatic of the all zero inquiry buffer.
>> scsi 0:2:18:0: Enclosure IBM PSBPD6E4A 3GSAS 0109 PQ: 0 ANSI: 4
>> scsi: unknown device type 31
>> scsi 0:255:255:255: No Device IBM 2B4C001SISIOA 0150 PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>>
>> -> The above looks odd, not sure what it means
>
> The "unknown device type"? I see it all the time on lots of different
> machines.
That is normal and expected on an ipr adapter. The unknown device seen on every ipr
adapter at SCSI bus/target/lun 255:255:255 is the adapter itself. It is used by
the RAID management tools in Linux to do things like RAID configuration via SG_IO.
>
>> ipr 0000:05:00.0: Found IOA with IRQ: 130
>> ipr 0000:05:00.0: Initializing IOA.
>> scsi 0:254:0:0: Processor IBM 57CB001SISIOA 0150 PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> ipr 0000:05:00.0: Starting IOA initialization sequence.
>> ipr 0000:05:00.0: Adapter firmware version: 04220029
>> ipr 0000:05:00.0: IOA initialized.
>> scsi1 : IBM 57CB Storage Adapter
>> scsi scan: INQUIRY result too short (5), using 36
>> scsi 1:0:4:0: Direct-Access PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> scsi 1:0:5:0: Direct-Access IBM ST9300603SS BB09 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
>> scsi scan: INQUIRY result too short (5), using 36
>> scsi 1:0:6:0: Direct-Access PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> scsi 1:0:7:0: Direct-Access IBM ST9300603SS BB09 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
>> scsi 1:0:18:0: Enclosure IBM PSBPD6E4A 3GSAS 0109 PQ: 0 ANSI: 4
>> scsi: On host 1 channel 0 id 18 only 511 (max_scsi_report_luns) of 402653184 luns reported, try increasing max_scsi_report_luns.
>> scsi: host 1 channel 0 id 18 lun 0xc0000007f01e810f has a LUN larger than currently supported.
>>
>> -> Now that looks horribly wrong... that LUN number looks like a kernel pointer
>
> Yeah, that's weird.
>
>> scsi scan: INQUIRY result too short (5), using 36
>> scsi 1:2:18:0: Direct-Access PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> ata1.00: ATAPI: IBM RMBO0040532, SA61, max UDMA/100
>> ata1.00: failed to IDENTIFY (device reports invalid type, err_mask=0x0)
>> ata1.00: revalidation failed (errno=-22)
>> ata1.00: disabled
>>
>> -> So SATA works "better" with the patch but doesn't actually work properly :-)
>>
>> scsi_alloc_sdev: Allocation failure during SCSI scanning, some SCSI devices might not be configured
>>
>> -> That error could give us more info... not sure what it means, we do have plenty of
>> memory...
>
> That message is sort of strange. It's not necessarily referring to
> memory allocation failing, but the port allocation failing in the SCSI
> code. And that just means an error, like the failed to IDENTIFY above,
> is occurring in the allocation path. It *can* also mean memory
> allocation failure, I think, just not in this case.
>
> I don't know much about the following errors, though, sorry.
>
> -Nish
>
>> scsi 1:8:0:0: Enclosure IBM VSBPD6E4B 3GSAS 01 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2
>> scsi: unknown device type 31
>> scsi 1:255:255:255: No Device IBM 57CB001SISIOA 0150 PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
>> work_for_cpu used greatest stack depth: 9520 bytes left
>> st: Version 20101219, fixed bufsize 32768, s/g segs 256
>> sd 0:0:4:0: [sda] 585937500 512-byte logical blocks: (300 GB/279 GiB)
>> sd 0:0:5:0: [sdb] 585937500 512-byte logical blocks: (300 GB/279 GiB)
>> sd 0:0:6:0: [sdc] 585937500 512-byte logical blocks: (300 GB/279 GiB)
>> sd 0:0:7:0: [sdd] 585937500 512-byte logical blocks: (300 GB/279 GiB)
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] READ CAPACITY failed
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Result: hostbyte=DID_OK driverbyte=DRIVER_SENSE
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Sense Key : Illegal Request [current]
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Add. Sense: Invalid command operation code
>>
>> -> Any idea what's up with that guy ?
If this guy is really an enclosure, this is the response you would get
on a Read Capacity.
>>
>> sd 0:0:4:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0
>> sd 0:0:5:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off
>> sd 0:0:5:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Test WP failed, assume Write Enabled
>> sd 0:0:6:0: Attached scsi generic sg2 type 0
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Asking for cache data failed
>> sd 0:0:7:0: Attached scsi generic sg3 type 0
>> sd 0:0:18:0: [sde] Assuming drive cache: write through
>> sd 1:2:18:0: [sdj] READ CAPACITY failed
>> sd 1:2:18:0: [sdj] Result: hostbyte=DID_OK driverbyte=DRIVER_SENSE
>> sd 1:2:18:0: [sdj] Sense Key : Illegal Request [current]
>> sd 1:2:18:0: [sdj] Add. Sense: Invalid command operation code
>>
>> -> And this one ?
Same here.
When did this last work on this system? It seems like this is completely
separate from the libata issue.
-Brian
--
Brian King
Linux on Power Virtualization
IBM Linux Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-23 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-15 19:17 libata/ipr/powerpc: regression between 2.6.39-rc4 and 2.6.39-rc5 Nishanth Aravamudan
2011-06-15 19:17 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2011-06-15 20:02 ` Brian King
2011-06-15 20:02 ` Brian King
2011-06-15 23:34 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2011-06-15 23:34 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2011-06-16 7:51 ` Tejun Heo
2011-06-16 7:51 ` Tejun Heo
2011-06-16 13:28 ` Brian King
2011-06-16 13:28 ` Brian King
2011-06-16 15:28 ` [PATCH] libata/sas: only set FROZEN flag if new EH is supported Nishanth Aravamudan
2011-06-16 15:28 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2011-06-21 16:07 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2011-06-21 16:07 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2011-06-21 20:30 ` Brian King
2011-06-21 20:30 ` Brian King
2011-06-21 20:39 ` Jeff Garzik
2011-06-21 20:39 ` Jeff Garzik
2011-06-23 4:31 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-06-23 4:31 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-06-23 4:42 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-06-23 4:42 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-06-23 5:10 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-06-23 5:10 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-06-23 17:15 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2011-06-23 17:15 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2011-06-23 20:05 ` Brian King [this message]
2011-06-23 20:05 ` Brian King
2011-06-23 20:05 ` Brian King
2011-06-23 21:43 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-06-23 21:43 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4E039C95.3070907@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=jgarzik@pobox.comWayne \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mbizon@freebox.fr \
--cc=nacc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=wayneb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.