Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "vdb5".
Did you mean:
sdb5
2014 Oct 13
0
BUG_ON in virtio-ring.c
...->sg_elems-2);
If you apply this patch, what happens? Here it prints:
[ 0.616564] virtqueue elements = 128, max_segments = 126 (1 queues)
[ 0.621244] vda: vda1 vda2 < vda5 >
[ 0.632290] virtqueue elements = 128, max_segments = 126 (1 queues)
[ 0.683526] vdb: vdb1 vdb2 < vdb5 >
Cheers,
Rusty.
diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
index 0a581400de0f..aa9d4d313587 100644
--- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
+++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
@@ -683,6 +683,13 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
/* We can handle whatever...
2014 Oct 07
2
BUG_ON in virtio-ring.c
Hi,
I'm hitting this bug with both ext4 and btrfs.
Here's an example of the backtrace:
https://gist.github.com/vzctl/e888a821333979120932
I tried raising this BUG only for direct ring and it solved the problem:
- BUG_ON(total_sg > vq->vring.num);
+ BUG_ON(total_sg > vq->vring.num && !vq->indirect);
Shall I submit the patch or is a more elaborate fix
2014 Oct 07
2
BUG_ON in virtio-ring.c
Hi,
I'm hitting this bug with both ext4 and btrfs.
Here's an example of the backtrace:
https://gist.github.com/vzctl/e888a821333979120932
I tried raising this BUG only for direct ring and it solved the problem:
- BUG_ON(total_sg > vq->vring.num);
+ BUG_ON(total_sg > vq->vring.num && !vq->indirect);
Shall I submit the patch or is a more elaborate fix