From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [Bug #12263] Sata soft reset filling log Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:18:55 +0300 Message-ID: <499983DF.5050503@ru.mvista.com> References: <200902152221.43834.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090215223045.GC29300@elte.hu> <200902160012.57584.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200902160012.57584.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Ingo Molnar , Justin Madru , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Linux IDE , Alan Cox , Hugh Dickins , Larry Finger , Mikael Pettersson List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Hello. Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>>This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report >>>>>of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28. >>>>>The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions >>>>>introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28. Please verify if it still should >>>>>be listed and let me know (either way). >>>>>Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12263 >>>>>Subject : Sata soft reset filling log >>>>>Submitter : Justin Madru >>>>>Date : 2008-12-13 2:07 (64 days old) >>>>>References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122913412608533&w=4 >>>>I'm still seeing this on .29-rc5, and I think that my bug #12263 is a >>>>duplicate of bug #12609, >>>>or more correctly it's a duplicate of mine because I reported first. >>>>It seems like the bug has been fixed in tip/master for some time now. >>>>Below is the diff of origin and tip from when I tested. >>>Ingo, do you know whinch patch in -tip fixes this regression? >>This one, done on Jan 10, more than a month ago: >> f1d26da: Revert "libata: Add 32bit PIO support" >>When a commit causes trouble in -tip qa i immediately revert it in 95% >>of the cases, no questions asked. Especially if it's related to >>persistent storage. > OK, thanks. > We seem to have a working fix patch for this issue in bug #12609. Wait, if this is indeed post-2.6.27 regression, it couldn't possibly have been caused by that patch which got merged during 2.6.29-rc1 timeframe. Something's up with this bug... MBR, Sergei