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 rea
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 firs
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
> > > > p
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 decisio
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 les
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 would be amenable to the above, Seokmann, could you
> > > rework the patch?
> >
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 target
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
> > > rew
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.
Sor
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
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 we
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 me
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 woul
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 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 conversatio
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 ke
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-p
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, 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
> pe
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, David Miller wrote:
> From: Andrew Vasquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:37:12 -0700
>
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > > But even if that fails, I think the fallback code should be put back,
> > > since it obviously was used by at least
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
From: Andrew Vasquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:37:12 -0700
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, David Miller wrote:
>
> > But even if that fails, I think the fallback code should be put back,
> > since it obviously was used by at least one system and it's probable
> > that there are some ot
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
