Re: [1/4] 2.6.21-rc5: known regressions (v2)

[Michal Jaegermann <michal@ellpspace.math.ualberta.ca>]

On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 05:01:23PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 06:23:10PM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 11:32:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > 
> > > Subject    : kernels fail to boot with drives on ATIIXP controller
> > >              (ACPI/IRQ related)
> > > References : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229621
> > >              http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/4/257
> > > Submitter  : Michal Jaegermann <michal@ellpspace.math.ualberta.ca>
> > > Status     : unknown
> > 
> > I have now even better one with pata_via.  A kernel, which for
> > all practical purposes is 2.6.21-rc5, not only refuses to boot
> > (and I cannot find some option combination which would allow me to
> > do so anyway) but simply refuses to read _any_ data from a media.
> > This included a partitioning information.
> > 
> > Earlier kernel on the same hardware boots without raising any fuss.
> > 
> > Details are collected as
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234650
> 
> If I understand this correctly, a plain 2.6.20 kernel is already broken?

You mean that a quoted report talks about 2.6.20-1.3025.fc7 kernel?
These are vagaries of kernel version numbering in Fedora.
Changelogs are not that clear but it appears that
2.6.19-1.2911.6.4.fc6 will be actually closer to 2.6.20.
That kernel from a bug report is really, for all intents and purposes,
2.6.21-rc5 (if I am not misreading something).

I am afraid that I do not have at this moment an easy to way to check
"plain" 2.6.20 on the hardware in question.  It appears that the
essential difference is that a working kernel is using and old IDE
driver, and sees the drive - in this case - as /dev/hdc, while the
current one tries to go through libata and chockes uncontrollably.

   Michal