Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 11.05.01 in : > At 1:32 PM -0300 2001-05-11, Ralf Baechle wrote: > >On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:51:25AM -0700, Jonathan Lundell wrote: > >> Kai Henningsen wrote: > >> >What's a lot more important is that the mail standards say that this > >> >stuf

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

At 11:20 PM -0300 2001-05-11, Ralf Baechle wrote: >On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 03:49:05PM -0700, Jonathan Lundell wrote: > >It's 998 plus a CR/LF sequence which is 1000 bytes, not exactly an odd >number. And it's the official successor of RFC 822 which was an official >STD. What I meant by "strange"

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 03:49:05PM -0700, Jonathan Lundell wrote: > >> >If you want to support wrapping with plain text, investigate > >> >format=flowed. > >> > >> Yes, I did that. > >> > > > I'm curious, though: I haven't found the mail standards that forbid > >> receivers to wrap long line

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

> >> > > > I'm curious, though: I haven't found the mail standards that forbid > >> receivers to wrap long lines. Certainly many mail clients do it. > >> What's the relevant RFC? > > > >RFC 2822, 2.1.1. > > Thanks. It's not quite a standard yet, but it's true, it does limit > lines to 998 cha

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

At 1:32 PM -0300 2001-05-11, Ralf Baechle wrote: >On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:51:25AM -0700, Jonathan Lundell wrote: >> Kai Henningsen wrote: >> >What's a lot more important is that the mail standards say that this stuff >> >should not be interpreted by the receivers as needing wrapping, so >>

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:51:25AM -0700, Jonathan Lundell wrote: > >What's a lot more important is that the mail standards say that this stuff > >should not be interpreted by the receivers as needing wrapping, so > >irregardless of good or bad design it's just plain illegal. > > > >If you want

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

> open("/dev/ttyF00/speed=9600,clocal"); > > is illegal. That may be a nice way to get much of the desired behaviour without > totally breaking compatibility > > Linus has suggested we do something similar in 2.5.x for multiple > data streams (or forks) in certain filesystems s

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

At 9:32 AM +0200 2001-05-03, Kai Henningsen wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 26.04.01 in >: > >> At 10:31 PM -0600 2001-04-26, Richard Gooch wrote: >> >BTW: please fix your mailer to do linewrap at 72 characters. Your >> >lines are

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 26.04.01 in : > At 10:31 PM -0600 2001-04-26, Richard Gooch wrote: > >BTW: please fix your mailer to do linewrap at 72 characters. Your > >lines are hundreds of characters long, and that's hard to read. > > So

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

> 1. Does POSIX state, that "/" is the directory/entry[1] separator? > 2. Can a device node be an directory? > > If 1. and not 2., there is no way to implement it like that. Why not. It doesn't say what happens if there is pathname left over when you hit the device specifically. tar would archi

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 09:32:41PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > Having thought over the issues I plan to maintain a 32bit dev_t kernel with > conventional mknod behaviour, even if Linus won't. One very interesting item > that Peter Anvin noted is that its not clear in POSIX that > > mknod /dev/

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

> I'm wary of this, because Linus has stated that the current "struct > pci_dev" is really meant to be a generic thing, and it might change to > "struct dev" (now that we've renamed the old "struct dev" to "struct > netdev"). It is already being (ab)used this way. Its an isa pnp device in 2.4.*.

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

Ingo Oeser writes: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:27:13PM -0600, Richard Gooch wrote: > > Then, vendors provide their own PCI fixups, which turn /dev/bus/pci0 > > What about /dev/bus/pci/0 or /dev/bus/pci/pci0 instead? > > That way we could hook roots of busses (which are "." nodes, like > if they

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

At 7:27 PM -0600 2001-04-30, Richard Gooch wrote: >Jonathan Lundell writes: > > ... > > Consider, instead of /dev/bus/pci0/dev1/fcn0/bus0/tgt1/lun2/part3 >> something like >> >> /dev/bus/pci0d1f0/scsi0t1l2p3 >> or >> /dev/bus/pci0:d1:f0/scsi0:t1:l2:p3 > >Nope. Linus hates the idea of "compre

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:27:13PM -0600, Richard Gooch wrote: > Then, vendors provide their own PCI fixups, which turn /dev/bus/pci0 What about /dev/bus/pci/0 or /dev/bus/pci/pci0 instead? That way we could hook roots of busses (which are "." nodes, like if they where mounted independently) bet

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

Jonathan Lundell writes: > On the subject of the Subject, Jeff Garzik recently (21 March) > suggested adding geographic information to the ethtool interface, > pci_dev->slot_name in the case of a PCI-based interface. There's > something to be said for having a uniform method of identifying the

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

At 10:31 PM -0600 2001-04-26, Richard Gooch wrote: >BTW: please fix your mailer to do linewrap at 72 characters. Your >lines are hundreds of characters long, and that's hard to read. Sorry for the inconvenience. There are a lot of reasons why I believe it's properly a display function to wrap lo

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

Jonathan Lundell writes: > At 3:59 PM -0600 4/24/01, Richard Gooch wrote: > >The plan I have (which I hope to get started on soon, now that I'm > >back from travels), is to change /dev/scsi/host# from a directory into > >a symbolic link to a directory called: /dev/bus/pci0/slot1/function0. > >Thus

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

At 3:59 PM -0600 4/24/01, Richard Gooch wrote: >The plan I have (which I hope to get started on soon, now that I'm >back from travels), is to change /dev/scsi/host# from a directory into >a symbolic link to a directory called: /dev/bus/pci0/slot1/function0. >Thus, to access a partition via locatio

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

Matt Domsch writes: > Thanks everyone for your input again. I've made the changes suggested, and > would appreciate this being applied to Linus' and Alan's trees. This is > necessary for solving the "what disk does BIOS think is my boot disk" > problem on IA-64, and I hope to extend it to IA-32