similar to: [PATCH 0/1] virtio-scsi: fix missing unplug events when all LUNs are unplugged at the same time

Commit 5ff843721467 ("scsi: virtio_scsi: unplug LUNs when events missed"), almost fixed the case of mass unpluging of LUNs, but it missed a corner case in which all the LUNs are unplugged at the same time. In this case INQUIRY ends with DID_BAD_TARGET. Detect this and unplug the LUN. Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk at redhat.com> --- drivers/scsi/virtio_scsi.c | 10

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 05:04:20PM +0000, Matt Lupfer wrote: > The event handler calls scsi_scan_host() when events are missed, which > will hotplug new LUNs. However, this function won't remove any > unplugged LUNs. The result is that hotunplug doesn't work properly when > the number of unplugged LUNs exceeds the event queue size (currently 8). > > Scan existing LUNs

Linux kernel only supports logical block sizes which are power of two, at least 512 bytes and no more that PAGE_SIZE. Check this instead of crashing later on. Note that there is no need to check physical block size since it is only a hint, and virtio-blk already only supports power of two values. Bugzilla link: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1664619 Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky

Linux kernel only supports logical block sizes which are power of two, at least 512 bytes and no more that PAGE_SIZE. Check this instead of crashing later on. Note that there is no need to check physical block size since it is only a hint, and virtio-blk already only supports power of two values. Bugzilla link: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1664619 Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky

On Wed, 2020-07-15 at 06:06 -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 12:55:18PM +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > Linux kernel only supports logical block sizes which are power of > > two, > > at least 512 bytes and no more that PAGE_SIZE. > > > > Check this instead of crashing later on. > > > > Note that there is no need to check

On Wed, 2020-07-15 at 06:06 -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 12:55:18PM +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > Linux kernel only supports logical block sizes which are power of > > two, > > at least 512 bytes and no more that PAGE_SIZE. > > > > Check this instead of crashing later on. > > > > Note that there is no need to check

I am building a new system using an Kingston 240GB SSD drive I pulled from my notebook (when I had to upgrade to a 500GB SSD drive). Centos install went fine and ran for a couple days then got errors on the console. Here is an example: [168176.995064] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] tag#14 FAILED Result: hostbyte=DID_BAD_TARGET driverbyte=DRIVER_OK [168177.004050] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] tag#14 CDB: Read(10)

This patch series aims to move the logical block size checking to the block code. This was inspired by missing check for valid logical block size in virtio-blk which causes the kernel to crash in a weird way later on when it is invalid. I added blk_is_valid_logical_block_size which returns true iff the block size is one of supported sizes. I added this check to virtio-blk, and also converted

This patch series aims to move the logical block size checking to the block code. This was inspired by missing check for valid logical block size in virtio-blk which causes the kernel to crash in a weird way later on when it is invalid. I added blk_is_valid_logical_block_size which returns true iff the block size is one of supported sizes. I added this check to virtio-blk, and also converted

To be honest, I'd not try a btrfs volume on a notebook SSD. I did that on a couple of systems and it corrupted pretty quickly. I'd stick with xfs/ext4 if you manage to get the drive working again. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com

On 08/09/2017 01:48 PM, hw wrote: > Robert Moskowitz wrote: >> I am building a new system using an Kingston 240GB SSD drive I pulled >> from my notebook (when I had to upgrade to a 500GB SSD drive). >> Centos install went fine and ran for a couple days then got errors on >> the console. Here is an example: >> >> [168176.995064] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] tag#14

Hi, Here is my patch queue I accumulated over quite a long time. Patches 1-6 are bugfixes, and rest is mostly RFC. Comments are welcome. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky

This is more or less simplified series of patches that bring power usage on my NV86 close to that of binary blob. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky

On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 22:55 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > Christoph, > > > Hmm, I wonder if we should simply add the check and warning to > > blk_queue_logical_block_size and add an error in that case. Then > > drivers only have to check the error return, which might add a lot > > less boiler plate code. > > Yep, I agree. > I also agree that this

what file system are you using?? ssd drives have different characteristics that need to be accomadated (including a relatively slow write process which is obvious as soon as the buffer is full), and never, never put a swap partition on it, the high activity will wear it out rather quickly.? might also check cables, often a problem particularly if they are older sata cables being run at a possibly

On 08/09/2017 10:46 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > If it's a bad sector problem, you'd write to sector 17066160 and see if the > drive complies or spits back a write error. It looks like a bad sector in > that the same LBA is reported each time but I've only ever seen this with > both a read error and a UNC error. So I'm not sure it's a bad sector. > > What is

Hi, It could be my mistake, but I have uptodate versions of xproto, dri2proto, xserver, nouveau ddx, mesa, libdrm. Still the above commit makes X not load nouveau dri module, and fallback to swrast_dri.so. Nothing in X logs, but that 'Screen is not AIGLX capable' Best regards, Maxim Levitsky

On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 18:25 +0300, Aioanei Rares wrote: > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Martin Nyhus <martin.nyhus at gmx.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 23:18:42 +0200 Martin Nyhus wrote: > > > after resuming from suspend nouveau starts writing Failed to idle > > > channel x (where x is 2 or 3) to the log and X appears to stop and > > >

On 08/10/2017 11:06 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 6:48 AM Robert Moskowitz <rgm at htt-consult.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 08/09/2017 10:46 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: >>> If it's a bad sector problem, you'd write to sector 17066160 and see if >> the >>> drive complies or spits back a write error. It looks like a bad sector

Hi, Here I post these 2 misc patches. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky