On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 01:55:04AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: [..] > I think the bio_has_data() change is at the heart of the BUG_ON(). > > Now this branch in blk_rq_bio_prep() is no longer taken: > > if (bio_has_data(bio)) { > rq->nr_phys_segments = bio_phys_segments(q, bio); > rq->buffer = bio_data(bio); > } > > This patch fixed the issue for me (though I'm still missing why > bio->bi_phys_segments was 0 given blkdev_issue_write_same() sets it): > > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/scsi/sd.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/scsi/sd.c > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/scsi/sd.c > @@ -697,6 +697,7 @@ out: > static int sd_setup_write_same_cmnd(struct scsi_device *sdp, struct request *rq) > { > struct scsi_disk *sdkp = scsi_disk(rq->rq_disk); > + struct request_queue *q = sdkp->disk->queue; > struct bio *bio = rq->bio; > sector_t sector = bio->bi_sector; > unsigned int nr_sectors = bio_sectors(bio); > @@ -711,7 +712,8 @@ static int sd_setup_write_same_cmnd(stru > > rq->timeout = SD_WRITE_SAME_TIMEOUT; > rq->__data_len = rq->resid_len = sdp->sector_size; > - rq->nr_phys_segments = bio->bi_phys_segments; > + rq->nr_phys_segments = bio_phys_segments(q, bio); > + rq->buffer = bio_data(bio); This kind of sounds not so good. We should have got it covered in blk_rq_bio_prep(). First we returned "false" from bio_has_data() and skipped above assignment, in blk_rq_bio_prep() and now we are trying to make up for it. Maybe returning false from bio_has_data() for WRITE_SAME is not such a good idea because this bio has one logical block of data. Martin, thoughts? Thanks Vivek -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel