Buganini wrote:
> does r22056{3,5,6,9} supercede these patches ?
Yes. They solve problem from different side.
> my dvd burning with ahci seems to be fixed by those commits,
> without these patches.
>
> I've just burned a DVD successful, and it's readable.
Yea, I've also burned few DVDs with cdr
does r22056{3,5,6,9} supercede these patches ?
my dvd burning with ahci seems to be fixed by those commits,
without these patches.
I've just burned a DVD successful, and it's readable.
Thanks,
Buganini
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http
On 11/13/10 20:34, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Brandon Gooch wrote:
>> 2010/11/5 Alexander Motin :
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I've reviewed tests that scgcheck does to SCSI subsystem. It shown
>>> combination of several issues in both CAM, ahci(4) and cdrtools itself.
>>> Several small patches allow us to pass m
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Jakub Lach wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> Just ensuring that this issue would not be forgotten,
> If I recall correctly, without added patches one
> cannot burn CD with cdrtools, quite a problem
> for media burning suite ;)
>
> best regards,
> - Jakub Lach
mav@ is working o
Brandon Gooch wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> Brandon Gooch wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alexander Motin wrote:
Now uncommitted pass_autosence.patch and possibly cdrtools.patch.
>>> OK. Patched kernel and cdrtools has resulted in a working c
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Brandon Gooch wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alexander Motin wrote:
>>> Now uncommitted pass_autosence.patch and possibly cdrtools.patch.
>>
>> OK. Patched kernel and cdrtools has resulted in a working cdrecord
>> (burned an IS
Brandon Gooch wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> Now uncommitted pass_autosence.patch and possibly cdrtools.patch.
>
> OK. Patched kernel and cdrtools has resulted in a working cdrecord
> (burned an ISO successfully) and an endless stream of:
>
> ...
> (pass0:ata
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Brandon Gooch wrote:
>> 2010/11/5 Alexander Motin :
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I've reviewed tests that scgcheck does to SCSI subsystem. It shown
>>> combination of several issues in both CAM, ahci(4) and cdrtools itself.
>>> Several small patches all
Hello.
scgcheck after applying all patches:
Ready to start test for second SCSI open? Enter to continue:
First SCSI open OK - device usable
**> Checking for second SCSI open.
Second SCSI open for same device succeeded, 1 additional file descriptor(s)
used.
Second SCSI open is usable
Cl
Brandon Gooch wrote:
> 2010/11/5 Alexander Motin :
>> Hi.
>>
>> I've reviewed tests that scgcheck does to SCSI subsystem. It shown
>> combination of several issues in both CAM, ahci(4) and cdrtools itself.
>> Several small patches allow us to pass most of that tests:
>> http://people.freebsd.org/~m
In spirit of Brandon Gooch's mail (although I have lurked whole time) , I'm
currently on FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE #0 r215179 amd64, and I'm also willing to
test any relevant patches, preferably after consensus is reached.
regards,
- Jakub Lach
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/S
2010/11/5 Alexander Motin :
> Hi.
>
> I've reviewed tests that scgcheck does to SCSI subsystem. It shown
> combination of several issues in both CAM, ahci(4) and cdrtools itself.
> Several small patches allow us to pass most of that tests:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~mav/sense/
>
> ahci_resid.patc
Alexander Motin wrote:
> > What is the requested size with the various HBAs in earlier kernels?
>
> For HBAs with automatic sense fetching -- as passed in sence_len request
> field. In case of libscg it was SSD_FULL_SIZE before and I've set it to
> be real value now. Returned sense_resid should b
Alexander Motin wrote:
> > Compare the number of sense bytes I like to request (18) with the number
> > previous FreeBSD versions did actually request. It is obvious that in case
> > there is a resid reported onm an old kernel, libscg (with your chanhge)
> > would
> > believe that probably le
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alexander Motin wrote:
>
>>> Compare the number of sense bytes I like to request (18) with the number
>>> previous FreeBSD versions did actually request. It is obvious that in case
>>> there is a resid reported onm an old kernel, libscg (with your chanhge)
>>> would
>
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alexander Motin wrote:
>
>>> The question still remains whether the previous implementation did return
>>> resid
0 in some cases. In this case, I would need to implement both variants in
the
>>> libscg adaption layer and I would need to know whether I am run
Alexander Motin wrote:
> > The question still remains whether the previous implementation did return
> > resid
> >> 0 in some cases. In this case, I would need to implement both variants in
> >> the
> > libscg adaption layer and I would need to know whether I am running on an
> > old
> > ve
Alexander Motin wrote:
> >>> Given the fact that many drives will probably only return 18 bytes of
> >>> sense
> >>> data, this will happen every time libscg is told to fetch more sense than
> >>> the
> >>> drive is willing to return.
> >>>
> >>> Is there a way to distinct an old kernel from
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alexander Motin wrote:
> Given the fact that many drives will probably only return 18 bytes of
> sense
> data, this will happen every time libscg is told to fetch more sense than
> the
> drive is willing to return.
>
> Is there a way to dist
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alexander Motin wrote:
>>> Your patch to libscg looks definitely OK if we only look at the new
>>> corrected
>>> kernel driver behavior.
>>>
>>> There is a problem:
>>>
>>> In case that there is a sense data residual > 0, libscg will asume that
>>> there
>>> is less sen
Alexander Motin wrote:
> > Your patch to libscg looks definitely OK if we only look at the new
> > corrected
> > kernel driver behavior.
> >
> > There is a problem:
> >
> > In case that there is a sense data residual > 0, libscg will asume that
> > there
> > is less sense data that really pr
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Marius Strobl wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 08:50:49PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
>>> I've reviewed tests that scgcheck does to SCSI subsystem. It shown
>>> combination of several issues in both CAM, ahci(4) and cdrtools itself.
>>> Several small patches allow us to
Marius Strobl wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 08:50:49PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > I've reviewed tests that scgcheck does to SCSI subsystem. It shown
> > combination of several issues in both CAM, ahci(4) and cdrtools itself.
> > Several small patches allow us to pass most o
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 08:50:49PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I've reviewed tests that scgcheck does to SCSI subsystem. It shown
> combination of several issues in both CAM, ahci(4) and cdrtools itself.
> Several small patches allow us to pass most of that tests:
> http://people.freeb
24 matches
Mail list logo
