From owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 15 14:00:02 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CB271E9 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:00:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E752C44 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:00:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r6FE01Kk024340 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:00:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id r6FE01qq024339; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:00:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:00:01 GMT Message-Id: <201307151400.r6FE01qq024339@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Markus Gebert Subject: Re: kern/179932: [ciss] ciss i/o stall problem with HP Bl Gen8 (and HP Bl Gen7 + Storage Blade) X-BeenThere: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Markus Gebert List-Id: SCSI subsystem List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:00:02 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/179932; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Markus Gebert To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Philipp_M=E4chler?= , "sean_bruno@yahoo.com" Cc: Subject: Re: kern/179932: [ciss] ciss i/o stall problem with HP Bl Gen8 (and HP Bl Gen7 + Storage Blade) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:51:06 +0200 I checked your MFC and all the fixes are already included in my patch = for 9.1 that we're currently testing with. With that patch, all G8 = blades are still running stable and have not shown any more IO stalls. = The G7 ones still reliably crash with our test load. So I think we can = state that we have already tested wether the changes from head help or = not. Is there another reason you want us to test with a stable/9 kernel, = or should we stick with the patched 9.1 for now? In any case I'll apply your DDB hook patch to our patched 9.1 kernel, so = we'll get out more debug information when a G7 blade stalls next time. Markus