Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices

2007-04-11 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include * Alan Cox [Wed, Apr 11 2007, 12:31:02PM]: > > > Can we do following without having side effects: > > > > > > open("/dev/sr0",O_EXCL|O_RDWR); /* no matter what it returns */ > > > fcntl(..., F_SETLK); /* no matter what it returns */ > > > ioctl(f, SCSI_IOCTL_GET_IDLUN, ); > > > ioctl(f,

Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices

2007-04-11 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include * Eduard Bloch [Sat, Apr 07 2007, 01:21:31PM]: > Can we do following without having side effects: > > open("/dev/sr0",O_EXCL|O_RDWR); /* no matter what it returns */ > fcntl(..., F_SETLK); /* no matter what it returns */ > ioctl(f, SCSI_IOCT

Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices

2007-04-11 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include hallo.h * Eduard Bloch [Sat, Apr 07 2007, 01:21:31PM]: Can we do following without having side effects: open(/dev/sr0,O_EXCL|O_RDWR); /* no matter what it returns */ fcntl(..., F_SETLK); /* no matter what it returns */ ioctl(f, SCSI_IOCTL_GET_IDLUN, x); ioctl(f

Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices

2007-04-11 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include hallo.h * Alan Cox [Wed, Apr 11 2007, 12:31:02PM]: Can we do following without having side effects: open(/dev/sr0,O_EXCL|O_RDWR); /* no matter what it returns */ fcntl(..., F_SETLK); /* no matter what it returns */ ioctl(f, SCSI_IOCTL_GET_IDLUN, x); ioctl(f,

Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices

2007-04-07 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include First, we (me and Thomas Schmidt) are working on a draft for a mandatory locking scheme which will take care of the most racy situations even without having a proper in-kernel solution. But you need to exlain some things, otherwise we cannot rely on your words. > (open has side effects

Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices

2007-04-07 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include hallo.h First, we (me and Thomas Schmidt) are working on a draft for a mandatory locking scheme which will take care of the most racy situations even without having a proper in-kernel solution. But you need to exlain some things, otherwise we cannot rely on your words. (open has side

Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices

2007-03-31 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include * Alan Cox [Sat, Mar 31 2007, 11:20:02PM]: > > But the desktop needs some means to deal with that. AFAICS the only > > feasible way for applications to communicate about device usage policy > > is locking with O_EXCL. Many people do not realize that even read-only > > serial ports and

Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices

2007-03-31 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include * Alan Cox [Fri, Mar 30 2007, 07:10:38PM]: > >If there is a simple way to get the mapping between the sg and sr > >devices that would be great and almost solve the problems, but I > >cannot discover a such thing in the kernel. > > You can go trying to match bus values but we

Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices

2007-03-31 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include hallo.h * Alan Cox [Fri, Mar 30 2007, 07:10:38PM]: If there is a simple way to get the mapping between the sg and sr devices that would be great and almost solve the problems, but I cannot discover a such thing in the kernel. You can go trying to match bus values but we

Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices

2007-03-31 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include hallo.h * Alan Cox [Sat, Mar 31 2007, 11:20:02PM]: But the desktop needs some means to deal with that. AFAICS the only feasible way for applications to communicate about device usage policy is locking with O_EXCL. Many people do not realize that even read-only serial ports and

Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices

2007-03-30 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include * Christoph Hellwig [Fri, Mar 30 2007, 02:43:27PM]: > > Long story: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=413960 > > https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226019 > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debburn-devel/2007-February/000297.html > > and other error

broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices

2007-03-30 Thread Eduard Bloch
Hello, I am talking this issue to LKML now. Short story: using O_EXCL on /dev/srX alone does not help to prevent other process from killing your burn process by just reading the /dev/sgX device associated with yours, and vice versa. We have done the best we could to make safe operation (in

broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices

2007-03-30 Thread Eduard Bloch
Hello, I am talking this issue to LKML now. Short story: using O_EXCL on /dev/srX alone does not help to prevent other process from killing your burn process by just reading the /dev/sgX device associated with yours, and vice versa. We have done the best we could to make safe operation (in

Re: broken device locking, sg vs. sg_io on block devices

2007-03-30 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include hallo.h * Christoph Hellwig [Fri, Mar 30 2007, 02:43:27PM]: Long story: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=413960 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226019 http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debburn-devel/2007-February/000297.html and other error

Re: [2.6.20 regression] No text console picture after X start

2007-02-07 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include * Eduard Bloch [Wed, Feb 07 2007, 12:19:53PM]: > Hello, > > I have an ATI Radeon X800 GTO card [1], which works "well"[2] with > xserver-xorg-video-ati 6.6.3-2 (Debian Sid). However, after upgrading to > 2.6.20, the console screen is no longer restored afte

[2.6.20 regression] No text console picture after X start

2007-02-07 Thread Eduard Bloch
Hello, I have an ATI Radeon X800 GTO card [1], which works "well"[2] with xserver-xorg-video-ati 6.6.3-2 (Debian Sid). However, after upgrading to 2.6.20, the console screen is no longer restored after switching the virtual terminal to first console when X has been started once. Apparently the

[2.6.20 regression] No text console picture after X start

2007-02-07 Thread Eduard Bloch
Hello, I have an ATI Radeon X800 GTO card [1], which works well[2] with xserver-xorg-video-ati 6.6.3-2 (Debian Sid). However, after upgrading to 2.6.20, the console screen is no longer restored after switching the virtual terminal to first console when X has been started once. Apparently the

Re: [2.6.20 regression] No text console picture after X start

2007-02-07 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include hallo.h * Eduard Bloch [Wed, Feb 07 2007, 12:19:53PM]: Hello, I have an ATI Radeon X800 GTO card [1], which works well[2] with xserver-xorg-video-ati 6.6.3-2 (Debian Sid). However, after upgrading to 2.6.20, the console screen is no longer restored after switching the virtual

Re: PROBLEM: KB->KiB, MB -> MiB, ... (IEC 60027-2)

2007-01-21 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include * Bodo Eggert [Sun, Jan 21 2007, 11:40:40AM]: > Tony Foiani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> "David" == David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Just last night I formatted some new "500GB" drives, and they > > eventually came back with 465GB as the displayed capacity.

Re: PROBLEM: KB-KiB, MB - MiB, ... (IEC 60027-2)

2007-01-21 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include hallo.h * Bodo Eggert [Sun, Jan 21 2007, 11:40:40AM]: Tony Foiani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David == David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just last night I formatted some new 500GB drives, and they eventually came back with 465GB as the displayed capacity. Wouldn't it make

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

2006-12-15 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include * Jeff V. Merkey [Thu, Dec 14 2006, 12:34:52PM]: > > This whole effort is pointless. This is the same kind of crap MICROSOFT > DOES to create incompatibilities Just my 0.02€ - one of the things I wonder about is why eg. class* interfaces has been replaced with something "protected"

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

2006-12-15 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include hallo.h * Jeff V. Merkey [Thu, Dec 14 2006, 12:34:52PM]: This whole effort is pointless. This is the same kind of crap MICROSOFT DOES to create incompatibilities Just my 0.02€ - one of the things I wonder about is why eg. class* interfaces has been replaced with something protected