From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Chmielewski Subject: Re: sata_mv: hard resetting port Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:26:46 +0100 Message-ID: <473C1EE6.3070304@wpkg.org> References: <473AC34B.8000709@wpkg.org> <473B13D6.3080202@rtr.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.syneticon.net ([213.239.212.131]:59337 "EHLO mail2.syneticon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756333AbXKOK0x (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:26:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: <473B13D6.3080202@rtr.ca> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Lord Cc: Linux IDE Mark Lord schrieb: (...) >> ata6: exception Emask 0x10 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x180000 action 0x6 frozen >> ata6: edma_err 0x00000020 >> ata6: hard resetting port >> ata6: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300) >> ata6.00: configured for UDMA/133 >> ata6: EH pending after completion, repeating EH (cnt=4) >> ata6: exception Emask 0x10 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x4010000 action 0x7 >> ata6: edma_err 0x00000010, dev connect >> ata6: hard resetting port > .. > > Translation: > "libata reset the link, and everything appeared okay, > so it reissued the failed command and continued. > No data loss." And today kernel (2.6.23.1) in the same machine have spoken to not-mere-mortals again: ata6: exception Emask 0x10 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x6 frozen ata6: edma_err 0x00000020 ata6: hard resetting port ata6: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300) ata6.00: configured for UDMA/133 ata6: EH complete sd 5:0:0:0: [sde] 781422768 512-byte hardware sectors (400088 MB) sd 5:0:0:0: [sde] Write Protect is off sd 5:0:0:0: [sde] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 sd 5:0:0:0: [sde] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA As I understand it now, your previous translation would fit here (or not, as SErr differs?): > Translation: > "libata reset the link, and everything appeared okay, > so it reissued the failed command and continued. > No data loss." But why was the port reseted? There was no CRC error as before, was there? What worries me is that it always happens for the same drive. -- Tomasz Chmielewski http://wpkg.org