[PATCH][BUGFIX] : Megaraid patch for 2.6 1/5

[PATCH][BUGFIX] : Megaraid patch for 2.6 1/5

[Paul Wagland]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 783 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Linux-SCSI over the last few days I have been discussing a couple of
problems with the 2.6.2 megaraid driver. This patch, originally
submitted by Christoph Hellwig, fixes the problem where the megaraid
driver could be removed, even though it was in use.

patch is attached and below.

diff --recursive --ignore-all-space --unified linux-2.6.2.o/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c linux-2.6.2.megaraid/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c
--- linux-2.6.2.o/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c	2004-02-09 22:56:09.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.2.megaraid/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c	2004-02-20 01:32:21.000000000 +0100
@@ -4614,6 +4614,7 @@
 }
 
 static struct scsi_host_template megaraid_template = {
+	.module				= THIS_MODULE,
 	.name				= "MegaRAID",
 	.proc_name			= "megaraid",
 	.info				= megaraid_info,


[-- Attachment #2: 1-megaraid.mod_owner.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 485 bytes --]

diff --recursive --ignore-all-space --unified linux-2.6.2.o/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c linux-2.6.2.megaraid/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c
--- linux-2.6.2.o/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c	2004-02-09 22:56:09.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.2.megaraid/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c	2004-02-20 01:32:21.000000000 +0100
@@ -4614,6 +4614,7 @@
 }
 
 static struct scsi_host_template megaraid_template = {
+	.module				= THIS_MODULE,
 	.name				= "MegaRAID",
 	.proc_name			= "megaraid",
 	.info				= megaraid_info,

Re: [PATCH][BUGFIX] : Megaraid patch for 2.6 1/5

[Jeff Garzik]

Patches 1-5 look OK to me.

If you are attempting to follow LSI's megaraid (in 2.4 only, sigh), 
patch #4 may wind up causing you grief in the future.  Hopefully Atul 
will pick it up, though :)

	Jeff

Re: [PATCH][BUGFIX] : Megaraid patch for 2.6 1/5

[Paul Wagland]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1015 bytes --]


On Feb 20, 2004, at 6:10, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> Patches 1-5 look OK to me.
>
> If you are attempting to follow LSI's megaraid (in 2.4 only, sigh), 
> patch #4 may wind up causing you grief in the future.  Hopefully Atul 
> will pick it up, though :)

Thanks for looking them over! Patch 4 should not actually cause a 
problem, since this is actually one of the bigger changes introduced in 
the 2.00.9 patch. I think it was 2.00.9 anyway, just guessing from the 
changelogs, in any case it is definitely one of the "more widespread" 
changes between 2.00.3 and 2.10.1, which is the current 2.4 driver. The 
bigger problem is probably going to be patch 5, and the follow ons from 
it, since that factors out more common code between the /proc and /sys 
filesystems, which also results in smaller "common chunks" between the 
two drivers.

My plan at the moment is to pull forward all of the changes from the 
2.10.1 driver, and then to go back and add more sysfs support on top of 
what is there now.

Cheers,
Paul

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]