From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Subject: Re: [PATCH] sym53c8xx PPR negotiation fix Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:55:46 -0700 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <4159000000.1067644546@aslan.btc.adaptec.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> Reply-To: "Justin T. Gibbs" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from magic.adaptec.com ([216.52.22.17]:24278 "EHLO magic.adaptec.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261276AbTJaXvg (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Oct 2003 18:51:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1067453148.3112.369.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Ledford , Matthew Wilcox Cc: James Bottomley , Marcelo Tosatti , linux-scsi mailing list > 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. -- Justin