From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: sata_sil on amd64 Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:29:50 +0100 Message-ID: <58cb370e050123082935e29d4f@mail.gmail.com> References: <200501221919.35710.tsm@accesscomm.ca> Reply-To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.202]:9111 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261324AbVAWQ3y (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:29:54 -0500 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 67so56330wri for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:29:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <200501221919.35710.tsm@accesscomm.ca> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tyler Montbriand Cc: jgarzik@pobox.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:19:35 -0600, Tyler Montbriand wrote: > I have been stuck using kernel 2.6.4 for the last year or so for various > reasons, and now I'm in a vicious catch-22. If I don't upgrade, I can't use > NPTL, therefore my system will continue to be susceptible to the > sigqueue-overflow flaw in linuxthreads. But if I do upgrade, problems in > >0.53 sata_sil implementations halt my system in a matter of minutes with > dmesg entries about imaginary bad blocks. > > 0.53 probably has it's own flaws, but it's been rock-solid running a single > drive on my computer for a year. How feasible would it be to forward-port > this version to a newer kernel, say 2.6.10? If I fix the header problems > could it work, or is .10 too structurally different from .4? Alternatively if you pinpoint the kernel snapshot which introduces this behavior (-bk patches are available at kernel.org) we may be able to fix sata_sil. Bartlomiej