From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Ledford Subject: Re: [PATCH] sym53c8xx PPR negotiation fix Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:02:29 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1067644949.3112.536.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> References: <1067447221.3112.336.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> <1067447490.1829.30.camel@mulgrave> <20031029175045.GC25237@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <1067450547.3112.363.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> <20031029183159.GE25237@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <1067453148.3112.369.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> <4159000000.1067644546@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:10259 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261294AbTKAADt (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:03:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4159000000.1067644546@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Justin T. Gibbs" Cc: Matthew Wilcox , James Bottomley , linux-scsi mailing list On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 18:55, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > > Yeah, the appropriate time to check that bit would be at > > slave_configure() time. (Hmmm...I should have documented that...) > > BTW, slave_destroy() doesn't seem to be called after a probe > for a target fails due to a selection timeout. Is this the > expected behavior? I only keep persistent allocations after > slave_configure() is called, so this doesn't affect my drivers, > but the behavior isn't what I expected. This is 2.6.0-test9. I haven't been able to follow 2.5/2.6 SCSI stuff as close as I wanted, but originally I thought it did call slave_destroy() even if it never called slave_configure()....hmmm...maybe I should go check my stuff back then...I could be wrong on that. -- Doug Ledford 919-754-3700 x44233 Red Hat, Inc. 1801 Varsity Dr. Raleigh, NC 27606