From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11742 Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:50:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20081024065043.GA4762@gollum.tnic> References: <20081020112039W.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20081022061207.GB30682@gollum.tnic> <20081022155025S.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <200810222215.02762.bzolnier@gmail.com> Reply-To: petkovbb@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.154]:64100 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751589AbYJXGux (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:50:53 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 19so863207fgg.17 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200810222215.02762.bzolnier@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Cc: FUJITA Tomonori , valerio.p@libero.it, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Hi, > Is the culprit REQ_TYPE_BLOCK_PC request or REQ_TYPE_ATA_PC one? Well, from what I see from the latest traces Valerio sent me, it is always a REQ_TYPE_BLOCK_PC with sizes for rq->data_len which fail in the alignment test: rq->data_len: 0xc, rq->data_len: 0xf810, rq->data_len: 0xf810, rq->data_len: 0xf810, rq->data_len: 0xf810, rq->data_len: 0xf810, rq->data_len: 0xf810, rq->data_len: 0xf810, rq->data_len: 0xf810, rq->data_len: 0xf810, rq->data_len: 0xf810, rq->data_len: 0xf810, rq->data_len: 0xf810, rq->data_len: 0xf810, rq->data_len: 0xf810, rq->data_len: 0xf810, rq->data_len: 0xf810, Those are, according to Valerio, taken during burning which looks like something aroung 64K requests which fail the rq->data_len & alignment test where alignment is 0x1f. The would've passed the old test rq->data_len & 0xf. /me researching DMA alignment requirements... -- Regards/Gruss, Boris.