From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: CDC_RAM for lk 2.4, PATCH proposed Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 08:53:15 +0200 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040521065312.GK1952@suse.de> References: <20040520080622.GF1952@suse.de> <1085090500.3822.20.camel@patibmrh9> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:43464 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265403AbUEUGxi (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2004 02:53:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1085090500.3822.20.camel@patibmrh9> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Pat LaVarre Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, John McKell On Thu, May 20 2004, Pat LaVarre wrote: > diff confirms for me the patch inline of this post matches what John > McKell posted, except for the trivial difference of folder names & dates > and the substantive difference that I did comment out the per-open > printk: > > - + printk("cdrom: %s opening for WRITE\n", current->comm); > + + /* printk("cdrom: %s opening for WRITE\n", current->comm); */ That's fine, I killed that in 2.6 as well. > > > I believe 2.4.18 patch actually makes `mount -w` work there by way of > > > "see all DVD/CD drives as DVD-RAM/ DVD-ROM compatible". > > > > But that's not what the patch does at all. The patch simply says "If we > > succeeded in retriving the mode capability page, ignore what it says and > > flag the drive as dvd-rom/ram capable" which is clearly bogus. > > To newbie me, this is not clearly bogus, sorry. > > 1) > > I see my 2.4.18 patch makes `mount -w` work, by way of breaking `cat > /proc/sys/dev/cdrom/info`. > > mount matters more to me than proc. > > Besides, the breakage is small. I'm not falsely claiming that a DVD-RAM > disc is present. I'm only falsely claiming that a DVD-RAM disc could be > present. Software that branches visibly on which kind of disc might > someday be present looks very nearly bogus to me. Sorry, I still think this is completely bogus. No point in debating it, there's no way that hack will go into the 2.4 kernels. > 2) > > I see my 2.4.18 patch is extremely short and simple. > > Simplicity in the patch matters more to me the further I step back from > the latest available at kernel.org. Your 2.4.18 patch is a hack. > diff -Nurp linux-2.4.27-pre3/include/linux/cdrom.h linux-2.4.27-pre3-pel/include/linux/cdrom.h [snip] Patch looks fine to me, I'll send it to Marcelo for inclusion. Thanks! -- Jens Axboe