From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932588AbXARU3A (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:29:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932590AbXARU3A (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:29:00 -0500 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:33077 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932588AbXARU27 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:28:59 -0500 X-Envelope-From: stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de Message-ID: <45AFD862.6040903@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:28:18 +0100 From: Stefan Richter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061202 SeaMonkey/1.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kyuma Ohta CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: 2.6.20-rc2: kernel BUG at include/asm/dma-mapping.h:110! References: <1167550089.12593.11.camel@melchior> <1167708109.12382.26.camel@melchior> <459A800E.3010604@s5r6.in-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <459A800E.3010604@s5r6.in-berlin.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I wrote on 2007-01-02: > Kyuma Ohta wrote: > ... >> Now,I'm testing 2.6.20-rc3 for x86_64, submitted patch for this issue; >> "Fault has happened in 'cleanuped' sbp2/1394 module in *not 32bit* >> architecture hardwares ." >> >> As result of, sbp2 driver in 2.6.20-rc3 is seems to running >> w/o any faults,but communication both host and harddrive(s) >> was seems to be unstable yet :-( >> Sometimes confuse packets,such as *very* older 1394 driver :-( > > That is, sbp2 on 2.6.20-rc3 works less stable for you than on 2.6.19? Or > which previous kernel is the basis of your comparison? Are there any log > messages or other diagnostics? And what hardware do you have? > > If you can tell which kernel was good for you, I could create a set of > patches for you which allows to revert sbp2 while keeping the rest of > the kernel at the level of 2.6.20-rc3, so that you could find the > destabilizing change (if it happened in sbp2, not somewhere else). [...] So, how about it? Is there an actual regression? If so, we should find the cause and fix before 2.6.20 is released. Note, sbp2's optional parameter serialize_io=0 does not work correctly yet with some devices (it never did), therefore use sbp2 with anything than default parameters if there are problems. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== ---= =--=- http://arcgraph.de/sr/