On Wed, 23 May 2012, David Miller wrote: > From: Meelis Roos <mroos@xxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 19:46:46 +0300 (EEST) > > CC:'ing interested parties. > > >> > Just tested 3.4.0-02580-g72c04af on about 10 machines. While most of > >> > them work (including 3 different sparc64 machines with real scsi disks), > >> > Sun Netra X1 with pata_ali and IDE disk consistently fails to boot. sda > >> > is recognized but no partitions. 3.3.0 works fine, as did something > >> > around 3.4-rc7 (plain 3.4 not tested yet). No other IDE machines tested > >> > yet since I have none with remote console at the moment. > >> > >> If 3.4.0-final is OK, start bisecting from v3.4.0 until 72c04af. One > >> possibility could be the sparc64 NOBOOTMEM conversion that went into > >> the merge window. > > > > Bisecting leads to this commit: > > > > a7a20d103994fd760766e6c9d494daa569cbfe06 is the first bad commit > > commit a7a20d103994fd760766e6c9d494daa569cbfe06 > > Author: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Thu Mar 22 17:05:11 2012 -0700 > > > > [SCSI] sd: limit the scope of the async probe domain > > > > sd injects and synchronizes probe work on the global kernel-wide domain. > > This runs into conflict with PM that wants to perform resume actions in > > async context: ... > > Provide a 'scsi_sd_probe_domain' so that async probe actions actions can > > be flushed without regard for the state of PM, and allow for the resume > > path to handle devices that have transitioned from SDEV_QUIESCE to > > SDEV_DEL prior to resume. Does reverting just the part of the commit that touches scsi_lib.c make any difference? If not, does leaving that part in and reverting all the rest of the commit make any difference? Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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
