Mike Anderson wrote: > Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> James Bottomley wrote: >>> On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 18:46 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: >>>> Hello, Jens. >>>> >>>> Commit 242f9dcb8ba6f68fcd217a119a7648a4f69290e9 introduces a strange >>>> regression for libata. The second timeout gives puts different >>>> pointer from the issued command onto eh_cmd_q breaking libata EH >>>> command matching which triggers WARN_ON() in ata_eh_finish() and hangs >>>> command processing or causes oops later depending on circumstances. >>>> >>>> Here are logs with induced timeouts (patch attached). In commit >>>> 242f9dcb8, the XXX messages for the second timeout shows different >>>> scsi_cmd pointers for eh_cmd_q and qc->scmd which is initialized by >>>> ata_scsi_qc_new() during command translation. >>> I can't see a way we could be getting a different command passed in from >>> the actual one, since the only way to lose the command from the request >>> is to go through the command completion routines which free it (and end >>> the request). >> I have no idea either. It's something in the timeout logic because on >> the issue path the scmd pointer is identical but on tiemout pointer >> for another scmd is queued on eh_cmd_q, which doesn't make much sense. >> > > I was trying to recreate this error using ata_ram wth v2.6.28-rc2. > Currently I am not able to see this error on timeout recovery using this > setup. Does IO load (or other factors) effect the error being seen? Not at all. That's the only write command I issued. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
