From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935098Ab3GWW4E (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:56:04 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:33988 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934490Ab3GWW4B (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:56:01 -0400 Message-ID: <1374620157.2290.54.camel@dabdike> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mvsas: fix unaligned-access kernel panic under heavy disk testing From: James Bottomley To: Chris Metcalf Cc: Jianpeng Ma , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Xi Wang , Xiangliang Yu , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:55:57 -0700 In-Reply-To: <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> <51EF0643.5030507@tilera.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 18:40 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > 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 :-) Well it was originally a compile fix and a fast path optimisation. I notice the compile fix made it back. James