>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: FUJITA Tomonori [mailto:fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 5:01 PM
> > To:
James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com
> > Cc: bunk@kernel.org; bwindle@fint.org;
> > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; jens.axboe@oracle.com;
> > fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp; Patro, Sumant; DL-MegaRAID
> > Linux;
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc9 boot failure (megaraid?)
> >
> > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:38:13 -0500
> > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 20:15 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > Cc's added, the complete bug report is at
> > > >
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/2/243
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 12:48:26PM -0400, Burton Windle wrote:
> > > > > 2.6.23-rc9 fails to boot for me; 2.6.22.9 works fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > System is a Dell Poweredge with PERC 2/DC with RAID1 volume.
> > > > >...
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your report.
> > > >
> > > > Diff'ing the dmesg's shows:
> > > >
> > > > <-- snip -->
> > > >
> > > > scsi0: scanning scsi channel 4 [P0] for physical devices.
> > > > scsi0: scanning scsi channel 5 [P1] for physical devices.
> > > > st: Version 20070203, fixed bufsize 32768, s/g segs 256 -sd
> > > > 0:0:0:0: [sda] 17547264 512-byte hardware sectors (8984 MB)
> > > > +sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Sector size 0 reported, assuming 512.
> > > > +sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 1 512-byte hardware sectors (0 MB)
> > > > sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Asking
> > > > for cache data failed sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive
> > cache: write
> > > > through -sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 17547264 512-byte hardware
> > sectors (8984
> > > > MB)
> > > > +sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Sector size 0 reported, assuming 512.
> > > > +sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 1 512-byte hardware sectors (0 MB)
> > > > sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Asking
> > > > for cache data failed sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive
> > cache: write
> > > > through
> > > > sda: sda1
> > > > + sda: p1 exceeds device capacity
> > > >
> > > > <-- snip -->
> > > >
> > > > - case MEGA_BULK_DATA:
> > > > - if (scb->cmd->use_sg == 0)
> > > > - length = scb->cmd->request_bufflen;
> > > > - else {
> > > > - struct scatterlist *sgl =
> > > > - (struct scatterlist
> > *)scb->cmd->request_buffer;
> > > > - length = sgl->length;
> > > > - }
> > > > - pci_unmap_page(adapter->dev, scb->dma_h_bulkdata,
> > > > - length, scb->dma_direction);
> > > > - break;
> > > > -
> > >
> > > This is the problem piece I think. We've reintroduced a
> > very old bug:
> > >
> > > commit 51c928c34fa7cff38df584ad01de988805877dba
> > > Author: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
> > > Date: Sat Oct 1 09:38:05 2005 -0500
> > >
> > > [SCSI] Legacy MegaRAID: Fix READ CAPACITY
> > >
> > > Some Legacy megaraid cards can't actually cope with the
> > scatter/gather
> > > version of the READ CAPACITY command (which is what we
> > now send them
> > > since altering all SCSI internal I/O to go via the
> > block layer). Fix
> > > this (and a few other broken megaraid driver
> > assumptions) by sending
> > > the non-sg version of the command if the sg list only
> > has a single
> > > element.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
> > >
> > > So what we have to do is put back the check for use_sg == 1
> > and send
> > > that as a bulk transfer command.
> >
> > Sorry about this. Can this fix the problem?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c
> > b/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c index 3907f67..da56163 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c
> > @@ -1753,6 +1753,14 @@ mega_build_sglist(adapter_t *adapter,
> > scb_t *scb, u32 *buf, u32 *len)
> >
> > *len = 0;
> >
> > + if (scsi_sg_count(cmd) == 1 && !adapter->has_64bit_addr) {
> > + sg = scsi_sglist(cmd);
> > + scb->dma_h_bulkdata = sg_dma_address(sg);
> > + *buf = (u32)scb->dma_h_bulkdata;
> > + *len = sg_dma_len(sg);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > scsi_for_each_sg(cmd, sg, sgcnt, idx) {
> > if (adapter->has_64bit_addr) {
> > scb->sgl64[idx].address = sg_dma_address(sg);
> >
>
>
> With this patch I see the correct logical disk size reported.
> Thanks.
