From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [Bug 8942] dac960 driver stopped working with 2.6.22 kernel series Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 12:18:16 +0200 Message-ID: <200709011218.17129.ak@suse.de> References: <20070831084259.fc2fd903.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070831161733.GC14130@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:56504 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752307AbXIAKdS (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 06:33:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070831161733.GC14130@parisc-linux.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH , alex@nibbles.it, dac@conglom-o.org, "bugme-daemon@kernel-bugs.osdl.org" , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org > So anyway, what's actually failing is one of these: Thanks for the analysis. In theory we could not fail DAC if the machine has <4GB RAM to work around such buggy drivers, but then they would fail anyways with >4GB. Also the failure was intended to allow some drivers to use more efficient non DAC operation. > It seems a bit mean to write off *all* VIA bridges as data-corruptors. > Maybe the people who haven't had problems before can help us start a > white-list of VIA PCI bridges that don't have a problem with DAC. The reason I blacklisted all was that there was a small triple of data corruption reports with VIA bridges. Also it's impossible to get any errata information out of VIA. And there are not that many >4GB VIA systems because these chipsets are usually used in lower end systems. -Andi