[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Kernel 5.15 doesn't detect SATA drive on boot
On 2021/11/17 8:26, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote:
> [+CC Arnd, Bjorn, Marc and Sasha for visibility]
> Hello Damien and Yuji,
> [...]
>>> I'm using Arch Linux on MacBook Air 2010. I updated `linux` package[1]
>>> from v5.14.16 to v5.15.2 the other day, and the boot process stalled
>>> with the following message.
>>> ```shell
>>> :: running early hook [udev]
>>> Starting version 249.6-3-arch
>>> :: running hook [udev]
>>> :: Triggering uevents...
>>> Waiting 10 seconds for device /dev/sda3 ...
>>> ERROR: device '/dev/sda3' not found. Skipping fsck.
>>> :: mounting '/dev/sda' on real root
>>> mount: /new_root: no filesystem type specified.
>>> You are now being dropped into an emergency shell.
>>> sh: can't access tty; job control turned off
>>> [rootfs ]#
>>> ```
>>> In the emergency shell there's no `sda` devices when I type `$ ls
>>> /dev/`. By downgrading the kernel, boot process works properly.
>>> See also Arch Linux bug tracker[2]. There are similar reports on
>>> Apple devices.
>>> `dmesg` output in the emergency shell is attached. I guess this issue is
>>> related to libata, so CCed to Damien Le Moal.
>> I think that this problem is due to recent PCI subsystem changes which broke Mac
>> support. The problem show up as the interrupts not being delivered, which in
>> turn result in the kernel assuming that the drive is not working (see the
>> timeout error messages in your dmesg output). Hence your boot drive detection
>> fails and no rootfs to mount.
>> Adding linux-pci list.
>>> Regards.
>>> [1]
>>> [2]


> The error in the dmesg output (see [2] where the log file is attached)
> looks similar to the problem reported a week or so ago, as per:

Thanks. I searched this thread but could not find it in the archive.
Early morning, need more coffee :)

> The problematic commits where reverted by Bjorn and the Pull Request that
> did it was accepted, as per:
> Thus, this would made its way into 5.16-rc1, I suppose. We might have to
> back-port this to the stable and long-term kernels.

Yes, I think the fix needs to go in 5.15, which is latest stable and LTS.

> Yuji, could you, if you have some time to spare, try the 5.16-rc1 to see if
> this have gotten better on your system?
> Krzysztof

Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research

 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-17 00:42    [W:0.151 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site