From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Metcalf Subject: Re: [PATCH] mvsas: fix unaligned-access kernel panic under heavy disk testing Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:40:03 -0400 Message-ID: <51EF0643.5030507@tilera.com> References: <201307232053.r6NKrkOh032171@farm-0012.internal.tilera.com> <1374613204.2290.49.camel@dabdike> <51EEF2DA.3070903@tilera.com> <1374618791.2290.53.camel@dabdike> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1374618791.2290.53.camel@dabdike> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Jianpeng Ma , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Xi Wang , Xiangliang Yu , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 7/23/2013 6:33 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 17:17 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: >> On 7/23/2013 5:00 PM, James Bottomley wrote: >>> On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 16:50 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: >>>>> The slot->response value may not be aligned, so should be read >>>>> using the appropriate kernel "unaligned" accessor. >>> Hm, institutional memory re-presenting the wrong patch? However, I am >>> reminded to push the right one in spite of no ack from marvell. >> You may be right; the original author of that patch is not me, but someone else here at Tilera. >> >> That said, the version I pushed is effectively the version we have in the tip of our tree, so if we've ended up carrying the wrong patch, that's bad! Let me know what the right patch is that you have - thanks. > This is what I have. Thanks, I've merged the optimization back into our tree :-) -- Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp. http://www.tilera.com