Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: DAC960 Bitrot | Date | Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:57:51 +0200 |
| |
On Wednesday 24 July 2002 16:39, Jens Axboe wrote: > The only changes I did to this driver where trivial conversions in the > 2.5.1-pre days, in fact even before multi-page bio's existed. This, > btw, is also something you should keep an eye out for -- multi-page bio > support is currently broken.
I spotted that. I changed bio_size (which is gone) to bio_sectors(bio) << 9, is this correct?
> I would suggest also moving DAC960 to the > pci dma api (this is a must) and then move it to use the generic block > helpers for mapping requests. That way there isn't a lot of nasty > duplication there as well, plus it will automatically get the multi-page > issues right.
My first concern is to get something working any way I can so that I can start doing regression testing. True/false: the bad old way of doing dma will still work, it's just deprecated? If true, then I should (trivially) switch back to the old way of doing things, get the rest working, then convert to the dma api. Maybe *you* could make all the changes at the same time and expect to end up with something that works, but I can't.
The alternative is to go back many kernel versions and find the first one that broke something, but I don't want to do that because too much else was broken at the time.
> Hmm, is DAC960 using a full major per controller?!
As you saw, it implements the top level block interface instead of being a scsi device as it should be. So for disk subsystems we have: 1) IDE 2) SCSI 3) DAC960. Eep. At some point it's all going to be SCSI, right?
-- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |