Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763610AbXIMSBq (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:01:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755278AbXIMSBj (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:01:39 -0400 Received: from ox.emgs.com ([194.248.190.99]:35383 "EHLO ox.emgs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753148AbXIMSBi (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:01:38 -0400 Message-ID: <46E97AFF.30202@pvv.org> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:01:35 +0200 From: Jon Ivar Rykkelid User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo Cc: Jeff Garzik , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Robert Hancock Subject: Re: sata_nv issues with MCP51 SATA controller References: <46E8EABF.3060409@pvv.org> <46E94728.9050509@garzik.org> <46E951C6.1000403@pvv.org> <46E953D7.5070305@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <46E953D7.5070305@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1624 Lines: 46 Resending, as my first attempts contained HTML and was blocked... Tejun Heo wrote: > Jon Ivar Rykkelid wrote: > >> Thanks for the suggestion, but sata_nv is not built modular in my >> current kernel, so "no can do" at the moment >> (However, if some expert REALLY thinks this will fix things, I will >> CERTAINLY recompile and give it a go) >> > > Passing "sata_nv.adma=0" as kernel boot parameter will do the trick. > > Ahh, silly me... Of course! Ooops, I just got back, and verified: I actually have sata_nv running as a module after all on this server... My bad. I fixed /etc/modprobe.conf to include the following two lines: " alias scsi_hostadapter sata_nv options sata_nv adma=0 ... " I then ran "mkinitrd" (to ensure that the latest options from modprobe.conf were included) in the initrd-image that I load at boot. - Do you guys think this is worth a try? Anyway, I have rebooted now, so I'll test it for a few days and let you know - We'll just have to wait and see... Do you think I should re-enable SMART to provoke a failure, or would that be to tempt fate too much? (For now I have not re-enabled SMART) PS: Is there any way of testing / verifying that sata_nv is now running with this option? - I am pretty sure I have done it correctly, but I would still like to confirm that the proper option has been passed if possible. Thanks Jon Ivar - 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/