Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel

2008-02-05 Thread Olivier Galibert
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:57:47PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > iSCSI and NBD were passe ideas at birth. :) > > Networked block devices are attractive because the concepts and > implementation are more simple than networked filesystems... but usually > you want to run some sort of filesystem on

Re: INITIO scsi driver fails to work properly

2007-12-17 Thread Olivier Galibert
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 06:08:59PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > Below fixes a deadly typo. Might as well be included in 2.6.24 You're sure ? scsi_for_each_sg includes a (sg)++ already... > scsi_for_each_sg(cmnd, sglist, cblk->sglen, i) { > sg->data = cpu_to_l

Re: [patch 1/7] libata: check for AN support

2007-04-25 Thread Olivier Galibert
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 08:16:51PM +0100, Matt Sealey wrote: > > +#define ata_id_has_AN(id) \ > > + ( (((id)[76] != 0x) && ((id)[76] != 0x)) && \ > > + ((id)[78] & (1 << 5)) ) > > ?? > > > --- 2.6-git.orig/include/linux/libata.h > > +++ 2.6-git/include/linux/libata.h > > @@ -136,6

Re: [patch 1/7] libata: check for AN support

2007-04-24 Thread Olivier Galibert
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 01:53:27PM -0700, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote: > Check to see if an ATAPI device supports Asynchronous Notification. > If so, enable it. > > changes from last version: > * fix typo in ata_id_has_AN and make word 76 test more clear > * If we fail to set the AN feature, ju

Re: [patch 1/7] libata: check for AN support

2007-04-24 Thread Olivier Galibert
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:49:04AM -0700, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:23:04 +0200 > Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sorry for replying to Alan's reply, I missed the original mail. > > > > > > +#define ata_

Re: [patch 1/7] libata: check for AN support

2007-04-24 Thread Olivier Galibert
Sorry for replying to Alan's reply, I missed the original mail. > > +#define ata_id_has_AN(id) \ > > + ((id[76] && (~id[76])) & ((id)[78] & (1 << 5))) (a && ~a) & (b & 32) I don't think that does what you think it does, because at that point it's a funny way to write 0 ((0 or 1) binary-and (0