From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: aic7xxx strange code Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 17:28:23 +0100 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040101162823.GC18742@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <1072885576.10877.6.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <960352704.1072895786@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> <20040101100809.GA1053@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <478922704.1072973783@aslan.scsiguy.com> <20040101161731.GB18742@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <482322704.1072974098@aslan.scsiguy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UFHRwCdBEJvubb2X" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:43951 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264545AbUAAQ2d (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:28:33 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <482322704.1072974098@aslan.scsiguy.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Justin T. Gibbs" Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org --UFHRwCdBEJvubb2X Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 09:21:38AM -0700, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > >> Unfortunately, fixing 2.4 and 2.6 now doesn't help in supporting older > >> kernels that are still in production. You can't change the past no > >> matter how hard we'd like to try.=20 > >=20 > > But vendors will update those kernels..... >=20 > Yes, but I can't remove support for these older kernels for quite > some time.=20 2.6 seems to do the right thing at least so for your 2.6 drivers you can fix it. > Are you planning an audit of the other platforms to ensure API compliance? This is the first time I've seen this bug (thanks again for reporting it) and it's clearly an API violation of the ONE API in linux which is very well documented so no other platform will have copied this bad bug... Adaptect aic7xxx is not the only card which has the "ringbuffer needs to be in 32 bit dma space" requirements and no other drivers have workarounds like this, a sign that the bug isn't actually "common". --UFHRwCdBEJvubb2X Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/9EqmxULwo51rQBIRAuHFAJ0c2mLZbkS8jHUm804v/YRmS/OuXACfTdss XTig7Lf7rb2Y2CxbWm+gPlE= =xnCm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UFHRwCdBEJvubb2X--