From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755102AbZERNSa (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2009 09:18:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753325AbZERNSQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2009 09:18:16 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f158.google.com ([209.85.220.158]:59979 "EHLO mail-fx0-f158.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753157AbZERNSO convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2009 09:18:14 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=vJqeqW7DdC+GHY1AWndVn++XBJwrs4Vk7nqXuIjEedmUOMW/bWvURAGBGTzhvFpDAV lBZKi9AtFo7NIfg+xJBHGUB8NpTNqLQEn0GFphOhz2NL9mlXwoOTkOJX6EzM71jCkKq5 Jeunb7qtU4tgL17x/y3cU5dqdLk7c5hogh4bw= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090518063007.GA7818@liondog.tnic> References: <20090509161801.GB5749@liondog.tnic> <200905180532.n4I5Wxa1031243@turbo.physics.adelaide.edu.au> <20090518063007.GA7818@liondog.tnic> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:18:13 +0200 Message-ID: <9ea470500905180618t3785d5e1s880c395896b9ba15@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: 2.9.29.2: ide-tape: panic when probing device at boot From: Borislav Petkov To: Jonathan Woithe Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Small correction: >> > > Should I just push commit 1e75540ec5202cae63cd238c86bd880e3d496546 >> > > ("ide-tape: remove back-to-back REQUEST_SENSE detection") to Linus >> > > or there is more needed to bring ide-tape to the world of living? >> > >> > The oops will probably fixed the above commit.  I don't have much idea >> > about the DMA problem on 2.6.24 tho.  But even with the above commit >> > fixed, I doubt it would work.  The buffer allocation code is broken >> > and reliably triggered OOM on my test machine.  While trying to locate >> > the bug, I realized the complex code didn't do much good to begin with >> > and just stripped it down, so I didn't actually tracked down the >> > actual bug && the patch to simplify buffer management is way too large >> > for 2.6.29, so unless someone is willing to hunt down the bug just for >> > 2.6.29, we're kind of stuck.  :-( >> >> So I take it that 2.6.30 (or one of the RCs) is worth trying (at least in so >> far as preventing the oops on boot)? > > You could try 30-rc6 which runs pretty stable on my machines. It has the > patch mentioned above in it. the patch mentioned above got actually merged after 30-rc6 so you could try 30-rc7 - if there will be one - or a current linux-next release. Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris