On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:10:54PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:13:46 +0100
Note that I expect Sun put in the invalid ROM intentionally, as we have
similar cases with other cards that have totally messed up ROMs in
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, David Miller wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I don't think a module option is a good idea at this point. The problem
is you broke some so far perfectly working setups, which is not okay.
The only first step can be printing a really big
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 01:08:57PM -0700, Andrew Vasquez wrote:
Sorry, but in a SATA/SCSI environment that may be true, but in the
case of FC that expectation is unrealistic. There are thousands of FC
installations where there are several thousand endpoints (including
initiators and targets)
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I don't think a module option is a good idea at this point. The problem
is you broke some so far perfectly working setups, which is not okay.
The only first step can be printing a really big warning. After this
has been in for a while (at lest
From: Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:13:46 +0100
Note that I expect Sun put in the invalid ROM intentionally, as we have
similar cases with other cards that have totally messed up ROMs in
Sun-branded versions. Personally I think that's an utterly bad decision
From: Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:16:32 +0100
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:28:07AM -0700, Seokmann Ju wrote:
Hello David,
On Mon 4/16/2007 10:02 PM, David Miller wrote:
I'm in transit for a redeye to NY so I won't be able to modify the
patch, If you
From: Andrew Vasquez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:28:02 -0700
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I don't think a module option is a good idea at this point. The problem
is you broke some so far perfectly working setups, which is not okay.
The only first step
Hello David,
On Mon 4/16/2007 10:02 PM, David Miller wrote:
I'm in transit for a redeye to NY so I won't be able to modify the
patch, If you would be amenable to the above, Seokmann, could you
rework the patch?
Thanks guys.
Here, I've attached updated patch. Please take this.
Sorry for
From: Seokmann Ju [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:28:07 -0700
Hello David,
On Mon 4/16/2007 10:02 PM, David Miller wrote:
I'm in transit for a redeye to NY so I won't be able to modify the
patch, If you would be amenable to the above, Seokmann, could you
rework the patch?
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, David Miller wrote:
Sparc64 systems which have an on-board qla2xxx chip (such as
SunBlade-1000 and SunBlade-2000, there are probably some other systems
like this too) do not have any NVRAM information present, in fact the
NVRAM is basically all 0's from what I can tell.
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Now I'm happy to code up the sparc OFW property bits but your attitude
and perspective on this absolutely has to change and the old fallback
code still has to go back in there, possible FC ID collisions or not.
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Andrew Vasquez wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, David Miller wrote:
They DON'T
CARE, they want their systems to work and if you don't give them that
you're not being a good driver maintainer.
Let's push aside attitudes and unrealistic statistics, could we
perhaps
From: Andrew Vasquez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:10:49 -0700
Ok, how about the following patch based on the one you posted which
adds the codes to retrieve the WWPN/WWNN from firmware on SPARC, and
also adds the module-parameter override I mentioned above.
Perhaps the
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, David Miller wrote:
From: Andrew Vasquez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:10:49 -0700
Ok, how about the following patch based on the one you posted which
adds the codes to retrieve the WWPN/WWNN from firmware on SPARC, and
also adds the module-parameter
From: Andrew Vasquez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:25:17 -0700
Fine, I'll agree that wacking-users (and
I'll wager the outliers) with a 2x4 was a bit extreme,
And that, right there, is basically the end of the conversation.
You don't do this to users, ever.
Put a big loud
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, David Miller wrote:
From: Andrew Vasquez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:25:17 -0700
Fine, I'll agree that wacking-users (and
I'll wager the outliers) with a 2x4 was a bit extreme,
And that, right there, is basically the end of the conversation.
You
From: Andrew Vasquez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:28:51 -0700
Sorry, but let's be realistic, this type of warning would have
*NEVER* been addressed if we kept the status quo
Wrong. I watch the logs all the time and would have sent you a fix to
use the Sparc firmware info as
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, David Miller wrote:
From: Andrew Vasquez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:28:51 -0700
Sorry, but let's be realistic, this type of warning would have
*NEVER* been addressed if we kept the status quo
Wrong. I watch the logs all the time and would have
From: Andrew Vasquez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:47:05 -0700
Dave, according to your earlier emails, the qla2xxx driver worked
'fine' in driver versions before commit
7aef45ac92f49e76d990b51b7ecd714b9a608be1. If that were the case, then
you would have seen the warning
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, David Miller wrote:
From: Andrew Vasquez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:47:05 -0700
Dave, according to your earlier emails, the qla2xxx driver worked
'fine' in driver versions before commit
7aef45ac92f49e76d990b51b7ecd714b9a608be1. If that were the
From: Andrew Vasquez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:41:07 -0700
That verbiage sounds fine -- so would you consider the previous patch
I submitted (with module parameter) along with the wording above?
Yes, that sounds fine.
I'm in transit for a redeye to NY so I won't be able to
21 matches
Mail list logo
