From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932284Ab1GNRum (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:50:42 -0400 Received: from iabervon.org ([66.92.72.58]:55346 "EHLO iabervon.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932200Ab1GNRul (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:50:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:43:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Barkalow To: Seth Forshee cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Problems with hfsplus on ipods in 2.6.38+ In-Reply-To: <20110714135302.GA28501@thinkpad-t410> Message-ID: References: <20110714135302.GA28501@thinkpad-t410> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Seth Forshee wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:10:13PM -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > I've got an ipod which doesn't work with 2.6.38 or later, unless I revert: > > > > 358f26d52680cb150907302d4334359de7dd2d59 > > 52399b171dfaea02b6944cd6feba49b624147126 > > > > In the failing case, I get: > > > > sd 2:0:0:0: [sdb] Bad block number requested > > hfs: unable to find HFS+ superblock > > > > in dmesg when I try to mount it. > > > > Before 2.6.38, or with those commits reverted, it mounts fine and works so > > far as I can tell. (There's an Ubuntu bug report: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/util-linux/+bug/734883, which > > reports other people having similar results). I can test patches and > > collect information that might be helpful, if you have any ideas. > > This has had some discussion on lkml previously [1]. I've been trying to > work on a fix, but the current iteration has problems, and I haven't > been able to get testers to provide the logs I've requested to help me > see what's going wrong. If you'd like to help by providing logs from the > most recent test build on the bug you linked to (or using the patches > from that build) that would be great. I unfortunately don't have any > large-sector devices to test with and cannot reproduce the problems on > 512-byte sector devices. Sure, I'll try the comment #36 patch set this evening and see what it says. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*