> Although I haven't been involved for over 8 years, it us unlikely that
> the word "SCSI" has been given up as some generic aspirin. SCSI still
> means the stuff specified in the 519 Page document copyrighted by
> ANSI, called "SMALL COMPUTER SYSTEM INTERFACE - 2", Dated May 20, 1991,
> and the f
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Russell King wrote:
> > Seriously though, you can't depreciate a term for referring to a type of
> > bus without providing some other term to describe said bus.
>
> You need to distinguish between SCSI-the-protocol and
> SCSI-the-physic
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Russell King wrote:
> Seriously though, you can't depreciate a term for referring to a type of
> bus without providing some other term to describe said bus.
You need to distinguish between SCSI-the-protocol and
SCSI-the-physical-layer. The term "SCSI" alone is simply too ambig
Dan Hollis writes:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Russell King wrote:
> > I don't believe that is what it's trying to say. There have been instances
> > in the past where unplugging a SCSI device from a powered on SCSI bus can
> > result in blown terminator power fuses and the like. Whether this still
>
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Russell King wrote:
> > so my take is unless you explicitly use hotplug devices (I wasn't), that
> > it is much safer to unload the driver, unattach/attach scsi devices, and
> > then reload the driver (which will scan the scsi bus for devices), which
> > you need modules for.
>
Michael Meissner writes:
> Quoting from drivers/scsi/scsi.c:
>
> /*
>* Usage: echo "scsi add-single-device 0 1 2 3" >/proc/scsi/scsi
>* with "0 1 2 3" replaced by your "Host Channel Id Lun".
>* Consider this feature BETA.
>* CAUTION: This is not for hotp
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:26:01PM +0100, Ookhoi wrote:
> >3) Having drivers as modules means that you can remove them and
> >reload them. When I was working in an office, I had one scsi
> >controller that was a different brand (Adaptec) than the main scsi
> >controller (Tek
Hi Michael,
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 10:50:20PM -0600, Evan Thompson wrote:
> > I'd like to know (I know, I'm being slightly off topic, while still
> > staying on topic, so I'm on topic...er...yes) if there is any
> > advantage, be it memory-wise or architectuarally wise, to use
> > modules?
> >
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 10:50:20PM -0600, Evan Thompson wrote:
> I'd like to know (I know, I'm being slightly off topic, while still
> staying on topic, so I'm on topic...er...yes) if there is any
> advantage, be it memory-wise or architectuarally wise, to use modules?
>
> I already know the obvi
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:02:15AM +0100, J . A . Magallon wrote:
>
> On 2001.01.06 Drew Bertola wrote:
> > My best reasons are...
> >
> > Development: You don't have to recompile the kernel a billion times
> > while working on a driver, you just recompile the module. Also, you
> > can debug, u
On 2001.01.06 Drew Bertola wrote:
> My best reasons are...
>
> Development: You don't have to recompile the kernel a billion times
> while working on a driver, you just recompile the module. Also, you
> can debug, unload, fix, recompile, reload a module to add or fix
> pieces of it all (hopeful
My best reasons are...
Development: You don't have to recompile the kernel a billion times
while working on a driver, you just recompile the module. Also, you
can debug, unload, fix, recompile, reload a module to add or fix
pieces of it all (hopefully) without rebooting.
Practical usage: When I
12 matches
Mail list logo
