James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 13:57 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:50:45AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
That's what I thought, too. Hence the patch.
But if we set the default to 16 byte cdbs you can of course ignore
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 13:57 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:50:45AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> >> That's what I thought, too. Hence the patch.
> >> But if we set the default to 16 byte cdbs you can of course ignore
> >> the patch.
> >
> > I
On Oct. 22, 2007, 21:35 +0200, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 09:10:49PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> I'm about to finish an RFC patchset for the extended commands.
>> I have implemented a more aggressive approach than the one
>> I've been sending for the last
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 09:10:49PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> I'm about to finish an RFC patchset for the extended commands.
> I have implemented a more aggressive approach than the one
> I've been sending for the last year.
> (Matthew I have an extra 8-bytes save to scsi_cmnd on
> 64bit and 12
On Sun, Oct 21 2007 at 18:19 +0200, James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 10:32 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> The patch enables support for 16-bit CDBs in aic7xxx and aic79xx.
>> aic7xxx can actually support up to 32-bit CDBs, should they ever see
>> the light of day
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:50:45AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> That's what I thought, too. Hence the patch.
>> But if we set the default to 16 byte cdbs you can of course ignore
>> the patch.
>
> I think the comment in hosts.c explains why we shouldn't do that ...
>
_
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:50:45AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> That's what I thought, too. Hence the patch.
> But if we set the default to 16 byte cdbs you can of course ignore
> the patch.
I think the comment in hosts.c explains why we shouldn't do that ...
--
Intel are signing my paycheque
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 11:19:22AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
>> But, I suppose the main point is: is this really necessary? The
>> default, when unspecified, is 16 bytes and the mid-layer can't deliver
>> anything larger. I would anticipate the large CDB infrastructure
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 11:19:22AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> But, I suppose the main point is: is this really necessary? The
> default, when unspecified, is 16 bytes and the mid-layer can't deliver
> anything larger. I would anticipate the large CDB infrastructure will
> have some separate
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 10:32 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> The patch enables support for 16-bit CDBs in aic7xxx and aic79xx.
> aic7xxx can actually support up to 32-bit CDBs, should they ever see
> the light of day.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/aic7
The patch enables support for 16-bit CDBs in aic7xxx and aic79xx.
aic7xxx can actually support up to 32-bit CDBs, should they ever see
the light of day.
Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aic79xx.h |2 ++
drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aic79xx_osm.c |1
11 matches
Mail list logo