From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Artem S. Tashkinov" <t.artem@lycos.com>
Subject: Re: IO errors after "block: remove =?UTF-8?Q?bio=5Fget=5Fnr=5Fvec?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?s=28=29=22?=
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:31:06 +0500
Message-ID: <3d0904116ed2fa7e4fe8bb6f383534c5@lycos.com>
References: <CA+55aFwLyGifsQFdYZcWHeaHptxMqO_G25fZjer4R_yk4NtCpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACVXFVOZ+8AJwn=qyPOjzpAdfTu=AAa_oUGhqnWvU2WTANCzHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20aa515947cdc15799f520f904ad99a2@lycos.com>
 <CA+55aFz+sW4NjHZJP8mdLaqR8O0A8S4jVp=hT21tTjweOb1t8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <3c353dc4883c60ee99caa4555c81b6a1@lycos.com>
 <CA+55aFyMPXK6VusHvNKim75O1ytXme7tA2g5+XQAziXuwUdHLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFzEzm0fQ20GTNMuSKsymQVzYnP3DdDo5HinXjek5Dtmzg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtprelay0222.b.hostedemail.com ([64.98.42.222]:51951 "EHLO
	smtprelay.b.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750794AbbLUHbR (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 21 Dec 2015 02:31:17 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzEzm0fQ20GTNMuSKsymQVzYnP3DdDo5HinXjek5Dtmzg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Ming Lin <ming.l@ssi.samsung.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>, "Artem S. Tashkinov" <t.artem@mailcity.com>, Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, IDE-ML <linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linus971@gmail.com

On 2015-12-21 10:23, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> 
>> That said, we obviously need to figure out this current problem
>> regardless first..
> 
> ... although maybe it *would* be interesting to hear what happens if
> you just compile a 64-bit kernel instead?
> 
> Do you still see the problem? Because if not, then we should look very
> specifically for some 32-bit PAE issue.
> 
> For example, maybe we use "unsigned long" somewhere where we should
> use "phys_addr_t". On x86-64, they obviously end up being the same. On
> normal non-PAE x86-32, they are also the same. But ..
> 

Let's wait for what Tejun Heo might say - I've applied his debugging 
patch and sent back the results.

Building x86_64 kernel here involves installing a 64bit Linux VM, so I'd 
like it to be the last resort.