[BUG,REGRESSION] SATA regression on 12.0-rc4 kernel

[hancockrwd@gmail.com (Robert Hancock)]

On 10/07/2013 01:12 PM, Arnaud Ebalard wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> yesterday, I reported on arm kernel mailing list what looked like a sata
> regression on my platform (Marvell Armada 370-based NETGEAR ReadyNAS
> 102). I initially thought this was an ARM-related issue. My initial
> email, provided below, contains various details on the platform and the
> error encountered.
>
> Today, before starting a painful git bisect, I decided to git log
> sata_mv.c code and then more generally drivers/ata to quickly end up on
> commit ed36911c747c (libata: Add support for SEND/RECEIVE FPDMA QUEUED)
> against which I got suspicious after looking again at the errors I had:
>
> [  417.288155] ata1.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x1fff6001 SErr 0x0 action 0x6 frozen
> [  417.295838] ata1.00: failed command: WRITE FPDMA QUEUED
> [  417.301097] ata1.00: cmd 61/48:00:80:ad:0b/00:00:0c:00:00/40 tag 0 ncq 36864 out
> [  417.315896] ata1.00: status: { DRDY }
> [  417.319570] ata1.00: failed command: WRITE FPDMA QUEUED
> [  417.324814] ata1.00: cmd 61/08:68:70:a1:87/00:00:0d:00:00/40 tag 13 ncq 4096 out
> [  417.339619] ata1.00: status: { DRDY }
> [  417.343288] ata1.00: failed command: WRITE FPDMA QUEUED
> [  417.348536] ata1.00: cmd 61/08:70:28:a2:87/00:00:0d:00:00/40 tag 14 ncq 4096 out
> [  417.363341] ata1.00: status: { DRDY }
> [  417.367010] ata1.00: failed command: WRITE FPDMA QUEUED
> [  417.372257] ata1.00: cmd 61/08:80:80:a3:87/00:00:0d:00:00/40 tag 16 ncq 4096 out
> [  417.387061] ata1.00: status: { DRDY }
> [  417.390733] ata1.00: failed command: WRITE FPDMA QUEUED
> [  417.395977] ata1.00: cmd 61/08:88:58:a1:c7/00:00:0d:00:00/40 tag 17 ncq 4096 out
> [  417.410782] ata1.00: status: { DRDY }
>
> Reverting both 87fb6c31b9 (libata: Add support for queued DSM TRIM) and
> ed36911c74 (libata: Add support for SEND/RECEIVE FPDMA QUEUED) makes the
> problem disappear. Note: reverting 87fb6c31b9 is not enough and I cannot
> compile the kernel with only the latter reverted.
>
> If you need more info on the platform or want me to test something some
> fix, do not hesitate.

I assume that it consistently fails on a non-working kernel and 
consistently works with those patches reverted? Given that both of those 
patches seem to only be touching SSDs with NCQ trim support, it seems 
odd they would be breaking a normal hard drive, but maybe there is some 
unexpected side effect..