Hi All,
Any one og you have any idea on scsi inquiry command ?
I want to send an Inquiry command to a scsi device through sd path (.i.e.
/dev/sda or /dev/sdb) by using SG_IO ioctl. Please explain me...
Your help is appreciated
Regards
Masthan
--
View this message in context:
http:/
On Mar 12, 2007 04:27 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Assume this partition table on my current HD:
>
> Disk /dev/hdc: 251.0 GB, 251000193024 bytes
> 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30515 cylinders
> Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
>
> Device Start
On Mar 11 2007 22:45, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Mar 11 2007 18:51, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>
>> > During the recent IO/FS workshop, we spoke briefly about the
>> > coming change to a 4k sector size for disks on linux. If I
>> > recall correctly, the general feeling was that the
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:52:22 +0800 Joe Jin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The 2.6.9 base is very old in mainline terms. Are you sure the bug hasn't
> > been fixed in mainline by other means?
>
> I cannot confirm if it have fixed in latest kernel, the server is a
> production system, it's hard t
> The 2.6.9 base is very old in mainline terms. Are you sure the bug hasn't
> been fixed in mainline by other means?
I cannot confirm if it have fixed in latest kernel, the server is a
production system, it's hard to debug it and try reproduce.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "uns
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Mar 11 2007 18:51, Ric Wheeler wrote:
During the recent IO/FS workshop, we spoke briefly about the
coming change to a 4k sector size for disks on linux. If I
recall correctly, the general feeling was that the impact was
not significant since we already do most file
Alan Cox wrote:
Are there other concerns in the IO or FS stack that we should bring up
with vendors? I have been asked to summarize the impact of 4k sectors
on linux for a disk vendor gathering and want to make sure that I put
all of our linux specific items into that summary...
We ne
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
I would be interested to know what the disk vendors intend to use as
their strategy when (with ATA) they have a 512 byte write from an older
file system/setup into a 4K block. The case where errors magically
appear
Well, you have logical and physical secto
>
> This is a bug actually in the megaraid.
Aha, I'll track it.
>
> And this is a direct command submission path: it already passed both
> online check gates in this path *after* the device was offlined, so
> adding a third won't fix this.
Yeah, I have notice that, however, from the logs, th
Alan Cox wrote:
I would be interested to know what the disk vendors intend to use as
their strategy when (with ATA) they have a 512 byte write from an older
file system/setup into a 4K block. The case where errors magically appear
Well, you have logical and physical sector size changes.
First
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:03:44 -0500 James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 12:33 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 41-second delay when mounting root fs.
>
> This sounds like a user configuration error. The adaptec has a bus
> settle time in its initialisation path. Or
On Mar 11 2007 18:51, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>
> During the recent IO/FS workshop, we spoke briefly about the
> coming change to a 4k sector size for disks on linux. If I
> recall correctly, the general feeling was that the impact was
> not significant since we already do most file system IO in 4k
> p
> Are there other concerns in the IO or FS stack that we should bring up
> with vendors? I have been asked to summarize the impact of 4k sectors
> on linux for a disk vendor gathering and want to make sure that I put
> all of our linux specific items into that summary...
We need to make sure
During the recent IO/FS workshop, we spoke briefly about the coming
change to a 4k sector size for disks on linux. If I recall correctly,
the general feeling was that the impact was not significant since we
already do most file system IO in 4k page sizes and should be fine as
long as we parti
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> scsi_wait_scan is designed to be a module that is loaded *after* you've
> loaded all HBA modules that doesn't return from module_init until the
> scans previously launched by the HBA module insertions are complete.
sure
> In
> a monolithic kernel, t
On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 22:17 +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 21:56 +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > Which means, with this change you cannot build a kernel without module
> > > support but with scsi_wait_scan, whic
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 21:56 +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > Which means, with this change you cannot build a kernel without module
> > support but with scsi_wait_scan, which was possible before. Don't know if
> > anybody would ever want to do
On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 21:56 +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> Which means, with this change you cannot build a kernel without module
> support but with scsi_wait_scan, which was possible before. Don't know if
> anybody would ever want to do this though...
I'll do something about that if you
Hi
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> Currently scsi_wait_scan is only built modular if SCSI is modular.
> However, it's perfectly possible for a built in SCSI still to have
> modular drivers and thus need scsi_wait_scan as a module. Therefore,
> scsi_wait_scan should always be built
Currently scsi_wait_scan is only built modular if SCSI is modular.
However, it's perfectly possible for a built in SCSI still to have
modular drivers and thus need scsi_wait_scan as a module. Therefore,
scsi_wait_scan should always be built as a module (unless the kernel
doesn't support modules).
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 12:33 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 41-second delay when mounting root fs.
This sounds like a user configuration error. The adaptec has a bus
settle time in its initialisation path. Originally it was 20s, hence
for a D card (twin channel) it would take about 50s to come onl
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 10:36 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 07:50:14PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 11:16 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Achim did reply: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/23/138
> >
> > Ah ... OK; sorry, I'm parochial ... if it didn't appea
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 09:40 +0800, Joe Jin wrote:
> > What's the error you're trying to fix? scsi_dispatch_cmd() is only
> > called from scsi_request_fn() which already has an equivalent of this
> > check in it just prior to calling dispatch.
>
> Yeah, I have saw the cheking at scsi_request_fn(),
ACK... Looks good...
-- james s
Linas Vepstas wrote:
Bino, James,
Please review, sign-off and forward upstream.
--linas
If a PCI error is detected that cannot be recovered from, there
will be a double call of lpfc_pci_remove_one(), with the second call
resulting in a null-pointer dereferen
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 09:40:40 +0800 Joe Jin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What's the error you're trying to fix? scsi_dispatch_cmd() is only
> > called from scsi_request_fn() which already has an equivalent of this
> > check in it just prior to calling dispatch.
>
> Yeah, I have saw the cheking
25 matches
Mail list logo
