Patrick Mansfield wrote:
>
> If your testing Doug's patch, it might be a good idea to run with/without
> your adapter built as a module, as the kernel is inconsistent in its setting
> of "online" in scsi.c: it sets online TRUE after an attach in
> scsi_register_device_module(), but leaves online
Patrick Mansfield wrote:
> If your testing Doug's patch, it might be a good idea to run with/without
> your adapter built as a module, as the kernel is inconsistent in its setting
> of "online" in scsi.c: it sets online TRUE after an attach in
> scsi_register_device_module(), but leaves online as
>
> I applied the first hunk to version 2.4.3-pre4, as by email with Doug.
> The output for the scsi devices follows and is identical with and
> without the patch. Maybe someone can explain the meaning of the illegal
> requests at the end. Nevertheless, I can use the drive fine.
>
If your testi
"Rafael E. Herrera" wrote:
>
> sr0: scsi3-mmc drive: 16x/16x xa/form2 changer
> sr0: CDROM (ioctl) reports ILLEGAL REQUEST.
> sr1: scsi3-mmc drive: 16x/16x xa/form2 changer
> sr1: CDROM (ioctl) reports ILLEGAL REQUEST.
> sr2: scsi3-mmc drive: 16x/16x xa/form2 changer
> sr2: CDROM (ioctl) reports
"Rafael E. Herrera" wrote:
>
> I applied the first hunk to version 2.4.3-pre4, as by email with Doug.
> The output for the scsi devices follows and is identical with and
> without the patch.
Thank you Rafael. This is what I suspected. I'm not sure when we starting
considering devices with a pe
I applied the first hunk to version 2.4.3-pre4, as by email with Doug.
The output for the scsi devices follows and is identical with and
without the patch. Maybe someone can explain the meaning of the illegal
requests at the end. Nevertheless, I can use the drive fine.
Loading module aic7xxx_old
Doug, could you check how this patch works if you have the qla2x00 installed in an
Alpha box? I'm hoping this is part of the source of my problems, but I'm not
positive. (I'd do it, but my system is running benchmarks for the next several
days.) Thanks!
- Pete
Doug Ledford wrote:
> Ishikawa
Ishikawa wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have an "old" Nakamichi CD changer.
> ("old" might be important consideration here. )
>
> Should I test the patch submitted and report what I found ?
> (Or maybe I don't have to bother at this stage at all
> and simply wait for the 2.5 development and debugging cy
Hi All,
Bob Frey wrote:
>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> You're right, I was thinking of the HiSup bit. But as you point out
> it only indicates a device supports Hierarchical Addressing and that
> it must support REPORT LUNS. I incorrectly inferred that a device with
> a HiSup bit of zero will not support
Hi Patrick,
You're right, I was thinking of the HiSup bit. But as you point out
it only indicates a device supports Hierarchical Addressing and that
it must support REPORT LUNS. I incorrectly inferred that a device with
a HiSup bit of zero will not support REPORT LUNS.
I don't see a better way t
Bob Frey wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 09:35:43PM -0500, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > 16384 LUNs for Fibre Channel. As you see, scanning is out of the
> > question. You must issue REPORT LUNs and fall back on scanning
> > if the device reports a check condition. I did that when I worked
> Why wai
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 09:35:43PM -0500, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> 16384 LUNs for Fibre Channel. As you see, scanning is out of the
> question. You must issue REPORT LUNs and fall back on scanning
> if the device reports a check condition. I did that when I worked
Why wait for a check condition? Ther
Doug Ledford wrote:
> Patches welcomed. The one I sent already works on a fiber channel setup (the
> qla2x00 in question is fc and so is the Clariion array it's connected to, no
> detrimental side effects from scanning the box) and so I'm not inclined to add
> a REPORT LUNs section to the code u
Pete Zaitcev wrote:
>
> > Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:28:14 -0500
> > From: Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > A bug report I was charged with fixing (qla2x00 driver doesn't see all luns or
> > sees multiple identical luns in different scenarios) was not a bug in the
> > qla2x00 driver. [...]
> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:28:14 -0500
> From: Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> A bug report I was charged with fixing (qla2x00 driver doesn't see all luns or
> sees multiple identical luns in different scenarios) was not a bug in the
> qla2x00 driver. [...]
> The bug is that we were detect
15 matches
Mail list logo
