Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268511AbUJDUvL (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:51:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268503AbUJDUr7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:47:59 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:38352 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268487AbUJDUpa (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:45:30 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 22:42:15 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Andrew Morton , Alan Cox , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Fw: Re: 2.6.9-rc2-mm4 Message-ID: <20041004204214.GB9022@suse.de> References: <20040929214637.44e5882f.akpm@osdl.org> <200410041754.25677.petkov@uni-muenster.de> <20041004173620.GA5707@suse.de> <200410042212.32106.petkov@uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200410042212.32106.petkov@uni-muenster.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2411 Lines: 72 On Mon, Oct 04 2004, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Monday 04 October 2004 19:36, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 04 2004, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > Ok here we go, > > > > > > final results: > > > > > > 2.6.8-rc1: OK > > > 2.6.8-rc2: OK > > > 2.6.8-rc3: OK > > > 2.6.8-rc3-bk1: OK > > > 2.6.8-rc3-bk2: OK > > > 2.6.8-rc3-bk3: OK > > > 2.6.8-rc3-bk4: OK > > > 2.6.8-rc4: BUG! > > > > > > So, assuming that everything went fine during testing, the bug got > > > introduced in the transition between 2.6.8-rc3-bk4 and 2.6.8-rc4. > > > > That's some nice testing, thank you. Try backing out this hunk: > > > > diff -urp linux-2.6.8-rc3-bk4/drivers/block/scsi_ioctl.c > > linux-2.6.8-rc4/drivers/block/scsi_ioctl.c --- > > linux-2.6.8-rc3-bk4/drivers/block/scsi_ioctl.c 2004-08-03 > > 23:28:51.000000000 +0200 +++ > > linux-2.6.8-rc4/drivers/block/scsi_ioctl.c 2004-08-10 04:24:08.000000000 > > +0200 @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ static int sg_set_reserved_size(request_ > > if (size < 0) > > return -EINVAL; > > if (size > (q->max_sectors << 9)) > > - return -EINVAL; > > + size = q->max_sectors << 9; > > > > q->sg_reserved_size = size; > > return 0; > > > > It's the only thing that sticks out, and it could easily explain it if > > your cd ripper starts issuing requests that are too big. Maybe even add > > a printk() here, so it will look like this in the kernel you test: > > > > if (size > (q->sectors << 9)) { > > printk("%u rejected\n", size); > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > > > to verify. > > Yeah, that was it. Two lines in the log: > > Oct 4 22:07:04 zmei kernel: 3145728 rejected > Oct 4 22:07:04 zmei kernel: 3145728 rejected > > Hmm, so this means that my dvd drive is sending too big requests. What do we > do: firmware upgrade? It actually means we have a little discrepancy between what programs expact of the api. What program are you using? They are supposed to read back what value has been set with SG_GET_RESERVED_SIZE, I guess this one does not. What's a little extra strange is that this command apparently doesn't have ->dxfer_len set to the correct size, or it should be caught in sg_io() at issue time. -- Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/