From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [Bug #12263] Sata soft reset filling log Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:21:36 +0300 Message-ID: <49998480.3090408@ru.mvista.com> References: <200902152221.43834.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090215223045.GC29300@elte.hu> <200902160012.57584.rjw@sisk.pl> <499983DF.5050503@ru.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <499983DF.5050503-hkdhdckH98+B+jHODAdFcQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Ingo Molnar , Justin Madru , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Linux IDE , Alan Cox , Hugh Dickins , Larry Finger , Mikael Pettersson Hello, I wrote: >>>>>> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report >>>>>> of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28. >>>>>> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions >>>>>> introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28. Please verify if it still >>>>>> should >>>>>> be listed and let me know (either way). >>>>>> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12263 >>>>>> Subject : Sata soft reset filling log >>>>>> Submitter : Justin Madru >>>>>> Date : 2008-12-13 2:07 (64 days old) >>>>>> References : >>>>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122913412608533&w=4 >>>>> I'm still seeing this on .29-rc5, and I think that my bug #12263 is >>>>> a duplicate of bug #12609, >>>>> or more correctly it's a duplicate of mine because I reported first. >>>>> It seems like the bug has been fixed in tip/master for some time now. >>>>> Below is the diff of origin and tip from when I tested. >>>> Ingo, do you know whinch patch in -tip fixes this regression? >>> This one, done on Jan 10, more than a month ago: >>> f1d26da: Revert "libata: Add 32bit PIO support" >>> When a commit causes trouble in -tip qa i immediately revert it in >>> 95% of the cases, no questions asked. Especially if it's related to >>> persistent storage. >> OK, thanks. >> We seem to have a working fix patch for this issue in bug #12609. > Wait, if this is indeed post-2.6.27 regression, it couldn't possibly > have been caused by that patch which got merged during 2.6.29-rc1 > timeframe. Something's up with this bug... Also, it's been reported for a hard disk while regression in bug 12609 only hits the ATAPI devices. I think that bug 12263 needs to be reopened. MBR, Sergei