On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 09:22:09PM +0200, Bombeeck, Jack wrote:
> So st should reject those devices that are serviced by
> osst. Couldn't we just let osst claim them first or is
> that too simple?
I think that letting st claim (under any circumstances) a device which it
can't handle is a mistake
how to obtain the correct load order.
cheers,
Jack
-Original Message-
From: Andre Hedrick
To: Willem Riede
Cc: Matthew Dharm; Gadi Oxman; Linux SCSI list; Kernel Developer List; Linus
Torvalds; Kai Makisara; Bombeeck, Jack
Sent: 14-9-00 1:53
Subject: Re: PATCH: ide-scsi.c to allow claim
> The second patch that Matt refers to inserts that logic into st so
> it does not try to support these drives and fails due to the drive
> particulars. Since SCSI, USB and IDE versions of these drives exist,
> patching st is more appropriate than ide-scsi.
Okay I am a mushroom, keep feeding me
Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Matthew Dharm wrote:
>
> > Attached is a patch to ide-scsi.c against 2.4.0-test8. Please consider
> > applying it.
> >
> > This patch removes the logic which causes ide-scsi to refuse to attach
> > itself to an IDE OnStream drive. While these drive
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 03:53:13PM -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Matthew Dharm wrote:
>
> > Attached is a patch to ide-scsi.c against 2.4.0-test8. Please consider
> > applying it.
> >
> > This patch removes the logic which causes ide-scsi to refuse to attach
> > itself t
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> Attached is a patch to ide-scsi.c against 2.4.0-test8. Please consider
> applying it.
>
> This patch removes the logic which causes ide-scsi to refuse to attach
> itself to an IDE OnStream drive. While these drives are not supported by
> the standar
6 matches
Mail list logo
