[SCSI] SD driver question

[SCSI] SD driver question

[Gabriel C]

Hello,

Is there any reason why sd is printing the driver informations for each 
disk twice in dmesg ?

...

sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 35843670 512-byte hardware sectors (18352 MB)
sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 9f 00 10 08
sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, supports 
DPO and FUA
sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 35843670 512-byte hardware sectors (18352 MB)
sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 9f 00 10 08
sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, supports 
DPO and FUA
sda: sda1
sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI disk
sd 0:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0

etc
...


Is a bit annoying and floodish ;) on boxes with a lot SCSI , *ATA disks.


Regards,

Gabriel C

Re: [SCSI] SD driver question

[Uwe Kiewel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gabriel C schrieb:
> Hello,
> 
> Is there any reason why sd is printing the driver informations for each
> disk twice in dmesg ?
> 
> ...
> 
> sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 35843670 512-byte hardware sectors (18352 MB)
> sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
> sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 9f 00 10 08
> sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, supports
> DPO and FUA
> sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 35843670 512-byte hardware sectors (18352 MB)
> sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
> sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 9f 00 10 08
> sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, supports
> DPO and FUA
> sda: sda1
> sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI disk
> sd 0:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0

the samne here.
...
scsi 0:0:0:0: Direct-Access     ATA      SAMSUNG HM080HC  AM10 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
SCSI device sda: 156301488 512-byte hdwr sectors (80026 MB)
sda: Write Protect is off
sda: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
SCSI device sda: write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't
support DPO or FUA
SCSI device sda: 156301488 512-byte hdwr sectors (80026 MB)
sda: Write Protect is off
sda: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
SCSI device sda: write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't
support DPO or FUA
...

Please, can you tell the version of the kernel you use? I use:
[abkie@config-lappi ~]$ uname -r
2.6.21-1.3228.fc7
It is the current Fedora 7 kernel.


Regards,
Uwe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGi9FFr6SFaBB7DLURAtb0AJ0YWiuBsEcOLChPvQcx6dOwvmPOxACfUsGT
3glIHhUVpqBOcizMaTcqU5M=
=xTfs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [SCSI] SD driver question

[Gabriel C]

Uwe Kiewel wrote:
> Please, can you tell the version of the kernel you use? I use:
> [abkie@config-lappi ~]$ uname -r
> 2.6.21-1.3228.fc7
> It is the current Fedora 7 kernel.
>
>   
Sure.

crazy@lara:~$ uname -r
2.6.22-rc6-git4

> Regards,
> Uwe
>   

Regards,
Gabriel

Re: [SCSI] SD driver question

[Uwe Kiewel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gabriel C schrieb:
> Uwe Kiewel wrote:
>> Please, can you tell the version of the kernel you use? I use:
>> [abkie@config-lappi ~]$ uname -r
>> 2.6.21-1.3228.fc7
>> It is the current Fedora 7 kernel.
>>
>>   
> Sure.
> 
> crazy@lara:~$ uname -r
> 2.6.22-rc6-git4
> 

An older kernel has the same behavior. Version is: 2.6.20-1.2952.fc6

Now I have no new Idea...


Regards,
Uwe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGjSwwr6SFaBB7DLURAivLAKCRvtemO+WOiehW1AOBxwSsrz1o8gCeProq
r0ic/W0xNL7U34bwOqVX0dg=
=3OAG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [SCSI] SD driver question

[James Bottomley]

On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 18:44 +0200, Gabriel C wrote: 
> Is there any reason why sd is printing the driver informations for each 
> disk twice in dmesg ?

Yes, it's because of the genhd revalidate rework done by Al Viro in the
block device revalidation path.  The problem is that we need to run a
disk revalidate early on in sd bringup to get all the necessary
information ... the gendisk code then does a disk revalidate to read the
partition table, resulting in the two identical sets of messages being
printed.  The best fix anyone could suggest was to try to suppress the
messages of the first one using some sort of per scsi_disk flag ...
however, no-one's very keen on this approach.

James