From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] mark qlogicfc broken Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:10:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20050211141015.GA28665@lst.de> References: <20050210181815.GB11818@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:59268 "EHLO mail.lst.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262178AbVBKOKV (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:10:21 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Ricky Beam Cc: jejb@steeleye.com, Linux SCSI List On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:06:14AM -0500, Ricky Beam wrote: > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >The hardware is supported by qla2xxx which is much better (and > >maintained) driver. Keeping the driver around confuses people to > >actually use it with severe results, e.g. > > That's a nice theory, but not so true in practice. qla2xxx will not > correctly drive a 2100. I've complained about this for several years > now and it still doesn't work. QLogic doesn't test the 2100 anymore. > (Maybe not the 2200's either.) Arjan tested it on the 2100 a while ago and it worked just fine. Have you tested it recently? > qlogicfc was removed from the tree once before only to be put back > about 30sec later because people still use it. It's certainly not > BROKEN. Not recommended, but not broken either. BROKEN is a tag for > things that are _broken_ -- they don't compile and don't work when they > do. qlogicfc both compiles and works, so BROKEN is the wrong thing to > use. It _is_ broken. See the url in my initial post.