FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
+#define scsi_for_each_sg(cmd, sg, nseg, __i) \
+ for (__i = 0, sg = scsi_sglist(cmd); __i (nseg); __i++, (sg)++)
+
This feels like a layering violation, why not use for_each_sg()?
+#define scsi_for_each_sg(cmd, sg, nseg, __i) \
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Benny Halevy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/19] add data buffer accessors
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 10:57:08 +0300
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
+#define scsi_for_each_sg(cmd, sg, nseg, __i) \
+ for (__i = 0, sg = scsi_sglist(cmd); __i
Hi,
On 5/13/07, James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 11:10 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
- depends on SCSI
+ depends on SCSI_SCAN_ASYNC
This is incorrect, alright, but not because of any of the reasons James
mentions below.
The only reason why some module
On 5/14/07, Satyam Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
config SCSI_WAIT_SCAN
tristate
- default m
- depends on SCSI
- depends on MODULES
+ default m if SCSI=m
+ default n
Note that this also means SCSI_WAIT_SCAN=n (will not get compiled
and built even
Hello,
[...]
config SCSI_WAIT_SCAN
tristate
- default m
- depends on SCSI
- depends on MODULES
+ default m if SCSI=m
+ default n
Note that this also means SCSI_WAIT_SCAN=n (will not get compiled
and built even as a module) if SCSI=y. But this is
James,
i try to understand what the introduction of the vports means for zfcp, since
this driver also supports NPIV. The documentation for the fc transport class
describes a driver that would fully control the adapter and the creation of
virtual address. Since you mentioned Xen, i assume that
Hello,
[...]
config SCSI_WAIT_SCAN
tristate
- default m
- depends on SCSI
- depends on MODULES
+ default m if SCSI=m
+ default n
Note that this also means SCSI_WAIT_SCAN=n (will not get compiled
and built even as a module) if SCSI=y. But
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 17:53 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
I guess this is probably the behaviour that James wanted originally?
No ... you're still not reading the explanation in the thread:
The wait scan module is designed to wait for scans of driver modules.
Whether SCSI=y or m has no effect on
From: Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/19] clean ups on the drivers
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 16:30:23 +0100
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 07:05:42PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
There are two patches for each driver, removing the non-use-sg code
and converting to use the
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
@@ -550,12 +550,7 @@ struct ipr_cmnd *ipr_get_free_ipr_cmnd(s
static void ipr_unmap_sglist(struct ipr_ioa_cfg *ioa_cfg,
struct ipr_cmnd *ipr_cmd)
{
- struct scsi_cmnd *scsi_cmd = ipr_cmd-scsi_cmd;
-
- if (ipr_cmd-dma_use_sg)
-
Christof Schmitt wrote:
James,
i try to understand what the introduction of the vports means for zfcp, since
this driver also supports NPIV. The documentation for the fc transport class
describes a driver that would fully control the adapter and the creation of
virtual address. Since you
reposting w/ the title
James Smart wrote:
Christof Schmitt wrote:
James,
i try to understand what the introduction of the vports means for
zfcp, since
this driver also supports NPIV. The documentation for the fc transport
class
describes a driver that would fully control the adapter and
Is SMART support available for SATA drives in SAS enclosures?
I'm testing this setup
LSI Logic SAS3800X PCI-X SAS controller (mptsas driver)
Promise V-Trak J300S SAS/SATA enclosure/expander
12x Seagate ST3500630NS
Linux kernel 2.6.21.1 x86_64
smartmontools-5.37-1.1.fc6 from Fedora Core 6
On May 13 2007 12:48, James Bottomley wrote:
Why does ATA select SCSI anyway? Surely PATA doesn't require it?
That's a bit offtopic and to the wrong list.
libata-pata does require SCSI ...
And in the long run, that SCSI parts which are actually used by ATA
should be factored out so that SCSI
Fix an Oops in the cciss driver caused by system shutdown while a filesystem
on a cciss device is still active. The cciss_remove_one function only
properly removes the device if the device has been cleanly released by its
users, which is not the case when the pci_driver.shutdown method is called.
On Mon, 14 May 2007 19:29:12 +0200 (MEST)
Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 13 2007 12:48, James Bottomley wrote:
Why does ATA select SCSI anyway? Surely PATA doesn't require it?
That's a bit offtopic and to the wrong list.
libata-pata does require SCSI ...
And in the
-Original Message-
From: Gerald Britton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 12:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Miller, Mike (OS Dev); ISS StorageDev;
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCH] cciss: Fix pci_driver.shutdown
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 07:06:45PM -, Miller, Mike (OS Dev) wrote:
Please send the Oops output.
Sure, here it is, this was built from a clean 2.6.21.1 tree (despite the
-dirty in the kernel version).
-- Gerald
Unmounting local filesystems...umount: /: device
On May 14 2007 19:46, Alan Cox wrote:
On May 13 2007 12:48, James Bottomley wrote:
Why does ATA select SCSI anyway? Surely PATA doesn't require it?
That's a bit offtopic and to the wrong list.
libata-pata does require SCSI ...
And in the long run, that SCSI parts which are actually used
From: Brian King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/19] ipr: convert to use the data buffer accessors
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 10:27:44 -0500
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
@@ -550,12 +550,7 @@ struct ipr_cmnd *ipr_get_free_ipr_cmnd(s
static void ipr_unmap_sglist(struct ipr_ioa_cfg *ioa_cfg,
On 5/14/07, James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 17:53 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
I guess this is probably the behaviour that James wanted originally?
No ... you're still not reading the explanation in the thread:
The wait scan module is designed to wait for scans
21 matches
Mail list logo
