From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Hancock Subject: Re: hsm violation Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:42:01 -0600 Message-ID: <467EC909.9040006@shaw.ca> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from shawidc-mo1.cg.shawcable.net ([24.71.223.10]:65235 "EHLO pd2mo3so.prod.shaw.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751410AbXFXTmI (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:42:08 -0400 In-reply-to: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: enricoss@tiscali.it, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik , Tejun Heo Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:32:22 +0200 Enrico Sardi wrote: >> [ 61.176000] ata1.00: exception Emask 0x2 SAct 0x2 SErr 0x0 action 0x2 >> frozen >> [ 61.176000] ata1.00: (spurious completions during NCQ issue=0x0 >> SAct=0x2 FIS=005040a1:00000004) .. > > It's not obvious (to me) whether this is a driver bug, a hardware bug, > expected-normal-behaviour or what - those diagnostics (which we get to > see distressingly frequently) are pretty obscure. The spurious completions during NCQ error is indicating that the drive has indicated it's completed NCQ command tags which weren't outstanding. It's normally a result of a bad NCQ implementation on the drive. Technically we can live with it, but it's rather dangerous (if it indicates completions for non-outstanding commands, how do we know it doesn't indicate completions for actually outstanding commands that aren't actually completed yet..) -- Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/