On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 01:28:38PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:16:58 +0100
>
> > aic7xxx might not be the best driver to look at either :) In practice
> > a softirq has short enough latency so this doesn't matter, but you
>
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 03:16:39PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > +What: old NCR53C9x driver
> > +When: October 2007
> > +Why: Replaced by the much better esp_scsi driver. Actual low-level
> > + driver can ported over almost trivially.
> ^
>
On 13/05/07 17:10, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 12:06 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/Kconfig b/drivers/scsi/Kconfig
index e62d23f..0f6c370 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/scsi/Kconfig
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ config SCSI_SCAN_ASYNC
config SCSI_WAIT
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 19:26 +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
> On 13/05/07 18:48, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 18:42 +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
> >>> If you set CONFIG_MODULE=y and build SCSI we assume you could have a
> >>> SCSI driver module at some point, which would necessitate th
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 07:26:31PM +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
> It looks like SCSI_WAIT_SCAN is pointless unless SCSI_SCAN_ASYNC
> is selected - so it should depend on it:
>
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/Kconfig b/drivers/scsi/Kconfig
> index e62d23f..0f6c370 100644
> --- a/drivers/sc
On 13/05/07 18:48, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 18:42 +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
If you set CONFIG_MODULE=y and build SCSI we assume you could have a
SCSI driver module at some point, which would necessitate the wait scan
module.
This should be implemented like "Library routines"
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 18:42 +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
> > If you set CONFIG_MODULE=y and build SCSI we assume you could have a
> > SCSI driver module at some point, which would necessitate the wait scan
> > module.
>
> This should be implemented like "Library routines" and only added if such
> a
On 13/05/07 17:27, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 12:20 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
since this thread looks like it's going to get away from me in a
hurry :-), my only point in asking was to point out that that lone
module was the only thing preventing the build from being modul
James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> drivers/ata/Kconfig has a select SCSI at the top, so if you selected
> modular ATA, you'll be forced to have modular SCSI.
Or built-in.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a messa
On Sun, 13 May 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 12:20 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > since this thread looks like it's going to get away from me in a
> > hurry :-), my only point in asking was to point out that that lone
> > module was the only thing preventing the build fr
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:10:55AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/Kconfig b/drivers/scsi/Kconfig
> > index e62d23f..0f6c370 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/Kconfig
> > @@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ config SCSI_SCAN_ASYNC
> > config SCSI_WAIT_S
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:18:35AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 11:10 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > -depends on SCSI
> > > +depends on SCSI_SCAN_ASYNC
> >
> > No. SCSI_SCAN_ASYNC is a bool ... if you depend on it, you'll force the
> > wait scan
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 12:20 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> since this thread looks like it's going to get away from me in a
> hurry :-), my only point in asking was to point out that that lone
> module was the only thing preventing the build from being module-free.
>
> i'm not saying that that's
On Sun, 13 May 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 12:06 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:22:55AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >
> > > not a big deal, but is there a reason that a "make defconfig" on my
> > > x86 system ends up selecting and build
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 11:10 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > - depends on SCSI
> > + depends on SCSI_SCAN_ASYNC
>
> No. SCSI_SCAN_ASYNC is a bool ... if you depend on it, you'll force the
> wait scan to be built in, which isn't the idea at all.
Plus SCSI_SCAN_ASYNC only sets the *default* f
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 12:06 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:22:55AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> > not a big deal, but is there a reason that a "make defconfig" on my
> > x86 system ends up selecting and building a single module?
> >
> > Building modules, st
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:22:55AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> not a big deal, but is there a reason that a "make defconfig" on my
> x86 system ends up selecting and building a single module?
>
> Building modules, stage 2.
> MODPOST 1 modules
> CC drivers/scsi/scsi_wait
Use wait_for_completion_timeout instead a semaphore + timer.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6/drivers/scsi/aha152x.c
===
--- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/scsi/aha152x.c 2007-05-13 16:14:29.00
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> From: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
>> As James already said the device argument should not be needed at all.
...
> +int scsi_dma_map(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> +{
> + int nseg = 0;
> +
> + if (scsi_sg_count(cmd)) {
> + struct device *dev = cmd
Hello, James, Andrew.
James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 11:25 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> [ 715.196000] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Synchronizing SCSI cache
>> [ 715.196000] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Stopping disk
>> [ 715.196000] ata3.00: DISK MIGHT NOT BE SPUN DOWN PROPERLY. UPDATE
>> SHUTDOWN
20 matches
Mail list logo
