lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.4.20-pre4-ac1 trashed my system

Your data is not trashed.
Linux failed to understand cut off partitions.
When you said you put it on primary channel, I realized that you have a
system that breaks the rules of Promise and I am not sure.
This will make it more painful to parse systems which can 48-bit and those
which can not.

This is not going to be fun.

grep "hwif->addressing" pdc202xx.c

Stub out the three lines.

Recompile and reboot, it will be fixed

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Mike Isely wrote:

>
>
> > OK, I have some good news and some bad news.
> >
> > The bad news is that I replicated the corruption.
> >
> > The good news is that I replicated the corruption. Oh, and I can
> > cause it on demand, and not lose my system in the process. I can
> > provide LOTS and LOTS of details now. What do you want to know?
> >
>
> [...]
>
> I've done some more tests and have more information now. No smoking
> gun yet, but a few more clues.
>
> 1. I moved the 160GB drive away from the Promise controller and
> reattached it to the motherboard chipset's controller ("VIA
> Technologies, Inc. Bus Master IDE (rev 06)", by the way according
> to lspci). Then I booted 2.4.20-pre4-ac1 (the "bad" kernel) and
> fsck'ed the big partition again. It passed. Then I moved the
> drive back to the Promise controller, booted the same OS and
> fsck'ed again. Failure.
>
> 2. I booted 2.4.19-ac4 with the 160GB drive attached to the Promise
> controller and watched the kernel log output. There's no message
> about any missing 80 pin cable. This is different than
> 2.4.20-pre4-ac1 which complains that I allegedly don't have an 80
> pin cable plugged. However the cable is there but the driver
> downshifts the interface to 33MHz anyway. I described this
> observation before and now today I noticed another poster on the
> lkml bringing up the same issue with his Promise 20269 controller
> (but in -pre5-ac1 instead - look for subject "2.4.20-pre5-ac1
> PDC20269 80-pin acble misdetection" [sic]).
>
> 3. Still looking for the low-hanging fruit, I extracted lots of other
> info from the system. I grabbed fdisk -l output, dmesg output, the
> kernel source .config file and a bunch of stuff out of /proc/ide,
> once apiece for each kernel version (while the 160GB drive remained
> on the Promise controller). I then diff'ed it all. I have all
> this saved, but in the spirit of not wasting more bandwidth, I am
> not including the raw data here. However here's a summary of the
> the differences I found:
>
> o Lots of dmesg differences, but nothing I saw really relevant
> beyond the thing about the 80 pin cable.
>
> o fdisk -l output was unchanged between the kernel versions, so I
> guess at least disk geometry hasn't been messed up.
>
> o hdparm output is different between the kernel versions. This
> should not be a big surprise since the 2.4.20-pre4-ac1 driver is
> downshifting the bus speed. hdparm -i (and -I) reports udma2 for
> the suspect kernel while I get udma5 for the stable kernel. I
> did see one other alarming(?) change however; hdparm -I is
> reporting different configurations:
>
> 2.4.19-ac4:
> Configuration:
> Logical max current
> cylinders 16383 65535
> heads 16 1
> sectors/track 63 63
> bytes/track: 0 (obsolete)
> bytes/sector: 0 (obsolete)
> current sector capacity: 4128705
> LBA user addressable sectors = 268435455
>
> 2.4.20-pre4-ac1:
> Configuration:
> Logical max current
> cylinders 16383 16383
> heads 16 16
> sectors/track 63 63
> bytes/track: 0 (obsolete)
> bytes/sector: 0 (obsolete)
> current sector capacity: 16514064
> LBA user addressable sectors = 268435455
>
> Note the different sector capacity, cylinder counts, and head
> counts. And yes, the entry reporting the _larger_ capacity is
> the suspect kernel (double-checked). Is this significant?
>
> o Timings (hdparm -t -T output) are also different. The "bad"
> kernel (2.4.20-pre4-ac1) is only getting 30MB/sec off the device
> while 2.4.19-ac4 is reading 35MB/sec. Not exactly a fantastic
> difference, but 35MB/sec exceeds UDMA33 rate so that would
> suggest that 2.4.19-ac4 really is running the Promise controller
> at something better than udma2.
>
> o Output from /proc/ide/pdc202xx is identical between the kernels.
>
> o There are differences in the files in /proc/ide/ide2/hde/*
> between the kernels but the differences are too cryptic for me to
> decipher in any meaningful way (but if you want the data, ask).
>
> o The two kernel source .config files have more differences than I
> expected. Notably, I see a new CONFIG_PDC202XX_* options that
> weren't there before. For CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PDC202XX has _OLD and
> _NEW variants now (both are set). Also CONFIG_PDC202XX_FORCE is
> new (and not set). And CONFIG_PDC202XX_BURST was previously set
> but for some unexplained reason I have it not set in the "bad"
> kernel. For the record, here are the currently enabled
> CONFIG_IDE* settings (same for both kernels):
>
> CONFIG_IDE=y
> CONFIG_IDEDISK_MULTI_MODE=y
> CONFIG_IDEDISK_STROKE=y
> CONFIG_IDEDMA_AUTO=y
> CONFIG_IDEDMA_ONLYDISK=y
> CONFIG_IDEDMA_PCI_AUTO=y
> CONFIG_IDEPCI_SHARE_IRQ=y
> CONFIG_IDE_CHIPSETS=y
> CONFIG_IDE_TASKFILE_IO=y
> CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL=y
>
>
> I'll build another 2.4.20-pre4-ac1 instance with CONFIG_PDC202XX_BURST
> turned on and see if that makes a difference. Any advice on the
> ...PDC202XX_OLD vs ...PDC202XX_NEW settings? Turn one of them off?
> What's the difference? (Don't answer that last one; I haven't checked
> the Configure help yet for it.)
>
> Another thing I can try is to force the driver to downshift to udma2
> in 2.4.19-ac4 and see if then the problem appears there.
>
> I'll can also build a new kernel from the newest sources and see if
> the problem still exists.
>
> Is there anything else I should try? Advice on a better direction?
> Should I sit down and shut up already? Are you all still reading this
> far down the message?
>
> -Mike
>
>
> | Mike Isely | PGP fingerprint
> POSITIVELY NO | | 03 54 43 4D 75 E5 CC 92
> UNSOLICITED JUNK MAIL! | isely @ pobox (dot) com | 71 16 01 E2 B5 F5 C1 E8
> | (spam-foiling address) |
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.080 / U:2.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site