From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Vasquez Subject: Re: Major qla2xxx regression on sparc64 Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:28:02 -0700 Message-ID: <20070418172802.GD12708@andrew-vasquezs-computer.local> References: <20070416.010218.130850966.davem@davemloft.net> <20070416163712.GA10822@andrew-vasquezs-computer.local> <20070416.123743.07452378.davem@davemloft.net> <20070416200857.GH10822@andrew-vasquezs-computer.local> <20070418171346.GA16471@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from avexch1.qlogic.com ([198.70.193.115]:22321 "EHLO avexch1.qlogic.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2992916AbXDRR2H (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:28:07 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070418171346.GA16471@infradead.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig , David Miller , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com, ema@debian.org On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I don't think a module option is a good idea at this point. The problem > is you broke some so far perfectly working setups, which is not okay. > The only first step can be printing a really big warning. After this > has been in for a while (at lest half a year) we can make it a non-default > option or turn if off completely in case the warning never triggered in > practice. > > The only resonable thing for 2.6.21 is to put in David's patch, possible > with an even more drastic warning when the rom is invalid and there's > no prom-fallback available. > > Note that I expect Sun put in the invalid ROM intentionally, as we have > similar cases with other cards that have totally messed up ROMs in > Sun-branded versions. Personally I think that's an utterly bad decision > from Sun's side, but we'll have to live with this. Fine. I'll rework an alternate patch for the 2.6.22 timeframe...