From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757374Ab1IAS6j (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2011 14:58:39 -0400 Received: from oproxy8-pub.bluehost.com ([69.89.22.20]:60331 "HELO oproxy8-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756109Ab1IAS6i (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2011 14:58:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 11:58:26 -0700 From: Jesse Barnes To: James Bottomley Cc: Roland Dreier , Eric Dumazet , scameron@beardog.cce.hp.com, Jon Mason , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stephenmcameron@gmail.com, thenzl@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mikem@beardog.cce.hp.com Subject: Re: [BUG] scsi: hpsa: how to destroy your files Message-ID: <20110901115826.287538bd@jbarnes-desktop> In-Reply-To: <1314903038.3067.27.camel@dabdike> References: <20110721181605.31672.36250.stgit@beardog.cce.hp.com> <1314890642.2823.27.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC> <20110901160724.GN9189@beardog.cce.hp.com> <1314898815.2823.33.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC> <1314903038.3067.27.camel@dabdike> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.22.0; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {10642:box514.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 67.161.37.189 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 11:50:38 -0700 James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 10:58 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > > > OK I found the bad commit,I got lucky... I lost some files but my > > > machine was able to complete the bisection. CC involved people > > > > > # bad: [b03e7495a862b028294f59fc87286d6d78ee7fa1] PCI: Set PCI-E Max Payload Size on fabric > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > I guess it would be useful to see "lspci -vv" output with a "good" kernel > > and with that bad patch applied. Most likely we should see some difference > > somewhere in the MaxPayload fields in the PCI Express capability of > > some device. > > > > Either the RAID controller or something else lies, and puts a value > > in the DevCap that it can't actually support, or else the patch is > > buggy and puts something out of range in a DevCtl somewhere. > > > While we investigate, I think the problems produced by the patch (data > corruption) are serious enough to warrant reverting it, please Jesse. Yep, I just got another report about it today too, I'll queue the revert. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center