Hi,
I've seen the patch (megaraid_mmmbox_fix_a_bug_in_reset_handler.patch) available on 2.6.17-rc1-mm3 under "SCSI warning fix" section.
What should I do to remove "warning" tag on the patch.
I've attached another patch in previous email that has 'udelay()' in the loop to remove NMI concern, and waiting for confirmation on it. Will this change remove the "warning"?
I'll submit the patch officially by end of today.
Any comment would be appreciated.
Thank you,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ju, Seokmann
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 9:13 AM
> To: 'Andre Hedrick'; Andrew Morton
> Cc: James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] megaraid_{mm,mbox}: fix a bug in
> reset handler
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you all for comment on the issue.
> From the comment, it looks having 'ndelay/udelay' would be
> right way to address the issue.
> I've attached a patch for just review purpose.
> Once it confirmed, I'll post the patch officially.
>
> Thank you,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andre Hedrick [mailto:andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 3:10 AM
> > To: Andrew Morton
> > Cc: Ju, Seokmann; Ju, Seokmann; James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] megaraid_{mm,mbox}: fix a bug in
> > reset handler
> >
> >
> > Andrew,
> >
> > This is real, and is a known bug which is 100% reproducable (sp).
> > There are other harry issues too, but this is as much as I can say.
> >
> > cpu_relax() will not work, already tried some time ago.
> >
> >
> > Andre Hedrick
> > LAD Storage Consulting Group
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > "Ju, Seokmann" <Seokmann.Ju@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This patch has fix for a bug in the 'megaraid_reset_handler()'.
> > > >
> > > > When abort failed, the driver gets reset handleer
> > called. In the reset
> > > > handler, driver calls 'scsi_done()' callback for same
> > SCSI command
> > > > packet (struct scsi_cmnd) multiple times if there are
> > multiple SCSI
> > > > command packet in the pend_list. More over, if there are
> > entry in the
> > > > pend_lsit with IOCTL packet associated, the driver
> > returns it to wrong
> > > > free_list so that, in turn, the driver could end up with
> > 'NULL pointer
> > > > dereference..' during I/O command building with
> > incorrect resource.
> > > >
> > > > Also, the patch contains several minor/cosmetic changes
> > besides this.
> > > >
> > > > ..
> > > >
> > > > @@ -2655,32 +2655,48 @@
> > > > // Also, reset all the commands currently owned
> by the driver
> > > > spin_lock_irqsave(PENDING_LIST_LOCK(adapter), flags);
> > > > list_for_each_entry_safe(scb, tmp,
> &adapter->pend_list, list) {
> > > > -
> > > > list_del_init(&scb->list); // from
> pending list
> > > >
> > > > - con_log(CL_ANN, (KERN_WARNING
> > > > - "megaraid: %ld:%d[%d:%d], reset from
> > pending list\n",
> > > > - scp->serial_number, scb->sno,
> > > > - scb->dev_channel,
> scb->dev_target));
> > > > + if (scb->sno >= MBOX_MAX_SCSI_CMDS) {
> > > > + con_log(CL_ANN, (KERN_WARNING
> > > > + "megaraid: IOCTL packet with %d[%d:%d]
> > being reset\n",
> > > > + scb->sno, scb->dev_channel,
> scb->dev_target));
> > > >
> > > > - scp->result = (DID_RESET << 16);
> > > > - scp->scsi_done(scp);
> > > > + scb->status = -EFAULT;
> > >
> > > What is the significance of -EFAULT here? Seems inappropriate?
> > >
> > > > @@ -2918,12 +2933,12 @@
> > > > wmb();
> > > > WRINDOOR(raid_dev, raid_dev->mbox_dma | 0x1);
> > > >
> > > > - for (i = 0; i < 0xFFFFF; i++) {
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < 0xFFFFFF; i++) {
> > > > if (mbox->numstatus != 0xFF) break;
> > > > rmb();
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Oh my. That's an awfully long interrupts-off spin. 1.7e7
> > operations with
> > > an NMI watchdog timeout of five seconds - I'm surprised it
> > doesn't trigger.
> > >
> > > Is that reading from a PCI register there? Or main memory?
> > >
> > > I'm somewhat surprised that the compiler never "optimises"
> > this into a
> > > lockup, actually. That's what `volatile' is for.
> > >
> > > Is it not possible to do this with an interrupt?
> > >
> > > A `cpu_relax()' in that loop would help cool things down a bit.
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > : send the line "unsubscribe
> > linux-scsi" in
> > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > >
> >
> >
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
