Re: [Kernel 2.5] Qlogic 2x00 driver

[GrandMasterLee <masterlee@digitalroadkill.net>]

On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 04:40, Michael Clark wrote:
> On 10/17/02 11:11, Andrew Vasquez wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, GrandMasterLee wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 20:59, Andrew Vasquez wrote:
> >>
> >>>The stack issues were a major problem in the 5.3x series driver.  I
> >>>believe, I can check tomorrow, 5.38.9 (the driver Dell distributes)
> >>>contains fixes for the stack clobbering -- qla2x00-rh1-3 also contain
> >>>the fixes.
> >>
> >>Does this mean that 6.01 will NOT work either? What drivers will be
> >>affected? We've already made the move to remove LVM from the mix, but
> >>your comments above give me some doubt as to how definite it is, that
> >>the stack clobbering will be fixed by doing so. 
> >>
> > 
> > The 6.x series driver basically branched from the 5.x series driver.  
> > Changes made, many moons ago, are already in the 6.x series driver.
> > To quell your concerns, yes, stack overflow is not an issue with the
> > 6.x series driver. 
> > 
> > I believe if we are to get anywhere regarding this issue, we need to 
> > shift focus from stack corruption in early versions of the driver.
> 
> Well corruption of bufferheads was happening for me with a potentially
> stack deep setup (ext3+LVM+qlogic). Maybe it has been fixed in the
> non-LVM case but is still an issue as I have had it with 6.0.1b3 -
> The stack fix is listed in 6.0b13 which is quite a few release behind
> the one i've had the problem with.

I don't disagree, but I saw the same things with XFS filesystems on LVM
also. This leads me to my next question. Does anyone on this list use
XFS plus QLA2300's with 500GB+ mounted by several volumes on Qlogic
driver 5.38.x or > and have greater than 20 days uptime to date?


> I posted the oops to lk about 3 weeks ago. Wasn't sure it was a qlogic
> problem at the time, and still am not certain - maybe just sum of
> stack(ext3+lvm+qlogic). Even if qla stack was trimmed for the common case,
> it may still be a problem when LVM is active as there would be much
> deeper stacks during block io.
> 

Kewl..thanks much.