On Saturday, 20. January 2007 20:59, you wrote:
> Ian Kumlien wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I went from 2.6.19+sata_nv-adma-ncq-v7.patch, with no problems and adama
> > enabled, to 2.6.20-rc5, which gave me problems almost instantly.
> >
> > I just thought that it might be interesting to know that it DID work
> > nicely.
> >
> > CC since i'm not on the ml
>
> (I'm ccing more of the people who reported this)
>
> Well that's interesting.. The only significant change that went into
> 2.6.20-rc5 in that driver that wasn't in that version you mentioned was
> this one:
>
> http://www2.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=com
>mit;h=2dec7555e6bf2772749113ea0ad454fcdb8cf861
>
> Could you (or anyone else) test what happens if you take the 2.6.20-rc5
> version of sata_nv.c and try it on 2.6.19? That would tell us whether
> it's this change or whether it's something else (i.e. in libata core).

Ok, did that! (got a fresh 2.6.19 tar ball, and used 2.6.20-rc5' sata_nv.c
with the oneliner in libata_sff.c)

And surprise.................... after one hour uptime, there is not even one 
sata exceptions in dmesg! (I'll report back tomorrow...)

>
> Assuming that still doesn't work, can you then try removing these lines
> from nv_host_intr in 2.6.20-rc5 sata_nv.c and see what that does?
>
> 	/* bail out if not our interrupt */
> 	if (!(irq_stat & NV_INT_DEV))
> 		return 0;
>
> as that's the difference I'm most suspicious of causing the problem.