Bug#671689: [regression 3.2->3.3.4] sata_sil (on sil 3512) hotplug broken again
Am 18.05.2012 22:32, schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
Please test the attached patch, for example following the instructions
from [1]. (Found at [2].) Thanks, Jonathan [1]
http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-common-tasks.html#s-common-official
or the corresponding page in the debian-kernel-handbook package [2]
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ide/51860/focus=51881
[ 320.644432] ata5: exception Emask 0x10 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x10000 action
0xe frozen
[ 320.644437] ata5: SError: { PHYRdyChg }
[ 320.644449] ata5: hard resetting link
[ 321.368035] ata5: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 310)
[ 326.368021] ata5: hard resetting link
[ 326.688028] ata5: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 310)
[ 331.688034] ata5: hard resetting link
[ 332.008027] ata5: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 310)
[ 332.008040] ata5.00: disabled
[ 332.008051] ata5: EH complete
[ 332.008060] ata5.00: detaching (SCSI 4:0:0:0)
[ 332.020060] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] Synchronizing SCSI cache
[ 332.020201] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] Result: hostbyte=DID_BAD_TARGET
driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
[ 332.020205] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] Stopping disk
[ 332.020213] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] START_STOP FAILED
[ 332.020215] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] Result: hostbyte=DID_BAD_TARGET
driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
[ 424.275712] ata5: exception Emask 0x10 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x50000 action
0xe frozen
[ 424.275718] ata5: SError: { PHYRdyChg CommWake }
[ 424.275731] ata5: hard resetting link
[ 429.980048] ata5: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 310)
[ 430.004251] ata5.00: ATA-8: VB0250EAVER, HPG0, max UDMA/100
[ 430.004254] ata5.00: 488397168 sectors, multi 0: LBA48 NCQ (depth 0/32)
[ 430.044200] ata5.00: configured for UDMA/100
[ 430.044209] ata5: EH complete
[ 430.044319] scsi 4:0:0:0: Direct-Access ATA VB0250EAVER
HPG0 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
[ 430.044544] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdh] 488397168 512-byte logical blocks: (250
GB/232 GiB)
[ 430.044590] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdh] Write Protect is off
[ 430.044593] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdh] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
[ 430.044613] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdh] Write cache: enabled, read cache:
enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA
[ 430.065793] sdh: sdh1
[ 430.066060] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdh] Attached SCSI disk
[ 457.213039] ata5: exception Emask 0x10 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x10000 action
0xe frozen
[ 457.213043] ata5: SError: { PHYRdyChg }
[ 457.213053] ata5: hard resetting link
[ 457.936036] ata5: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 310)
[ 462.936071] ata5: hard resetting link
[ 463.256025] ata5: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 310)
[ 468.256023] ata5: hard resetting link
[ 468.576029] ata5: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 310)
[ 468.576042] ata5.00: disabled
[ 468.576054] ata5: EH complete
[ 468.576068] ata5.00: detaching (SCSI 4:0:0:0)
[ 468.577923] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdh] Synchronizing SCSI cache
[ 468.577975] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdh] Result: hostbyte=DID_BAD_TARGET
driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
[ 468.577981] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdh] Stopping disk
[ 468.577993] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdh] START_STOP FAILED
[ 468.577995] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdh] Result: hostbyte=DID_BAD_TARGET
driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
[ 488.174245] ata5: exception Emask 0x10 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x50000 action
0xe frozen
[ 488.174251] ata5: SError: { PHYRdyChg CommWake }
[ 488.174264] ata5: hard resetting link
[ 493.880034] ata5: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 310)
[ 493.904203] ata5.00: ATA-8: VB0250EAVER, HPG0, max UDMA/100
[ 493.904206] ata5.00: 488397168 sectors, multi 0: LBA48 NCQ (depth 0/32)
[ 493.936239] ata5.00: configured for UDMA/100
[ 493.936249] ata5: EH complete
[ 493.936389] scsi 4:0:0:0: Direct-Access ATA VB0250EAVER
HPG0 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
[ 493.936625] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdh] 488397168 512-byte logical blocks: (250
GB/232 GiB)
[ 493.936692] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdh] Write Protect is off
[ 493.936696] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdh] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
[ 493.936726] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdh] Write cache: enabled, read cache:
enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA
[ 493.964105] sdh: sdh1
[ 493.965270] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdh] Attached SCSI disk
That was three-time-hotplugging-in-a-row and it works! \o/
So that is a general bug in libata and not driver specific? Is that fix
considered to be safe and will it most likely be included in upstream
kernel?
But first, thanks for the help, finding the patch and everything else,
greatly appreciated. :)
regards
Michael
Reply to: