On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 04:55:56PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 12:12:44PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 397 at block/blk-settings.c:339 blk_validate_limits+0x364/0x3c0 > > Modules linked in: mmc_block(+) rpmb_core crct10dif_ce ghash_ce sha2_ce dw_mmc_bluefield sha256_arm64 dw_mmc_pltfm sha1_ce dw_mmc mmc_core nfit i2c_mlxbf sbsa_gwdt gpio_mlxbf2 > > f_tmfifo dm_mirror dm_region_hash dm_log dm_mod > > CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 397 Comm: (udev-worker) Not tainted 6.12.0-39.el10.aarch64+64k #1 > > Hardware name: https://www.mellanox.com BlueField SoC/BlueField SoC, BIOS BlueField:3.5.1-1-g4078432 Jan 28 2021 > > ng pstate: 80000005 (Nzcv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) > > pc : blk_validate_limits+0x364/0x3c0 > > p.service > > lr : blk_set_default_limits+0x20/0x40 > > Setup... > > sp : ffff80008688f2d0 > > x29: ffff80008688f2d0 x28: ffff000082acb600 x27: ffff80007bef02a8 > > x26: ffff80007bef0000 x25: ffff80008688f58e x24: ffff80008688f450 > > x23: ffff80008301b000 x22: 00000000ffffffff x21: ffff800082c39950 > > x20: 0000000000000000 x19: ffff0000930169e0 x18: 0000000000000014 > > x17: 00000000767472b1 x16: 0000000005a697e6 x15: 0000000002f42ca4 > > x11: 00000000de7f0111 x10: 000000005285b53a x9 : ffff800080752908 > > x8 : 0000000000000001 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000000000000200 > > x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 000000000000ffff x3 : 0000000000004000 > > x2 : 0000000000000200 x1 : 0000000000001000 x0 : ffff80008688f450 > > Call trace: > > blk_validate_limits+0x364/0x3c0 > > blk_set_default_limits+0x20/0x40 > > blk_alloc_queue+0x84/0x240 > > blk_mq_alloc_queue+0x80/0x118 > > __blk_mq_alloc_disk+0x28/0x198 > > mmc_alloc_disk+0xe0/0x260 [mmc_block] > > ... > > mmcblk mmc0:0001: probe with driver mmcblk failed with error -22 > > I'm left still a bit perplexed with one question still, this is a known > issue now with using large page systems with smaller DMA max segment > sized devices either eMMC and Exynos UFS, does your patch just fix the > probe issue on eMMC? Yes. > What about functionality? It works just fine, as you saw Paul's tested-by, or do you think there are other areas not covered by this patch. > What aspsect of Bart's > series is now not needed? You can see this single patch as Bart's next version because of block layer's evolution. > > Bart's series were NACK'd as the changes were deemed too intrusive to > maintain on the block layer, so I am curious what has changed here to > enable eMMC. Basically, the following patches help much on the progress: commit 6aeb4f836480 ("block: remove bio_add_pc_page") commit 02ee5d69e3ba ("block: remove blk_rq_bio_prep") commit b7175e24d6ac ("block: add a dma mapping iterator") They changes passthrough code path to use split, so Bart's original change in passthrough part isn't necessary. > Will 16k page size systems with Exynos UFS work now? It is supposed to be true. Thanks, Ming
