On 01/19/2011 04:34 AM, David Dillow wrote: > On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 16:53 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: >> >> Well. -stable only needs the patch if the driver which triggers the >> problem is also there. But we don't know what driver that is, yet??? > > Good point. > > Any driver that supports a sg_tablesize of more than 256 has the > potential for problems. A quick search of the tree indicates that the > following set their initial sg_tablesize to SCSI_MAX_SG_CHAIN_SEGMENTS > (2048), though they may be saved by a separate bug I found -- and sent a > patch to the list -- that incorrectly causes that define to take the > value 128. > > ./drivers/usb/storage/scsiglue.c > ./drivers/scsi/arm/powertec.c > ./drivers/scsi/arm/eesox.c > ./drivers/scsi/arm/cumana_2.c > ./drivers/ata/pata_icside.c > <snip> iscsi has it on 2048 since ever Boaz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
