From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: Possible data corruption sata_sil24? Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:03:02 +0900 Message-ID: <469F1AB6.3000105@gmail.com> References: <20070706012432.GB29789@jabberwocky.com> <4693A5A0.5070306@gmail.com> <20070713014252.GA17811@jabberwocky.com> <46972AEE.2040805@gmail.com> <20070713115919.GC17811@jabberwocky.com> <469DD513.7070202@gmail.com> <20070718123100.GB3932@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070718123100.GB3932@jabberwocky.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids David Shaw wrote: >> I'm not sure whether this is problem of sata_sil24 or dm layer. Cc'ing >> linux-raid for help. How much memory do you have? One big difference >> between ata_piix and sata_sil24 is that sil24 can handle 64bit DMA. >> Maybe dma mapping or something interacts weirdly with dm there? > > The machine has 640 megs of RAM. FWIW, I tried this with 512 megs of > RAM with the same results. Running Memtest86+ shows the memory is > good. Hmmm... I see, so no DMA to the wrong address problem then. Let's see whether dm people can help us out. Thanks. -- tejun