On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Eric Youngdale wrote:
>[I finally got a response a couple of days ago which said that it was
>evidently something in patch43 which broke paride].
This was the interesting email I think:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Erik Inge Bolsų wrote:
>
>Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 15:40:09 +0100 (CET)
>From: Erik Inge Bolsų <knan@mo.himolde.no>
>To: Tim Waugh <twaugh@redhat.com>
>Cc: Linux-parport mailing list <linux-parport@torque.net>
>Subject: Re: [PARPORT] New queueing code
>
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Tim Waugh wrote:
>>Erik,
>>
>>Did you ever track down precisely which kernel version broke pd? I think
>>you said it was somewhere between 2.3.41 and 2.3.45.
>
>No, but one Jeff Jennings did and found it broke in 2.3.43.
>
>42->43 ... Damn big patch ... have taken a small look at it and backed
>off, myself. Good luck to you :-)
>
>--
>Erik I. Bolsų <knan at mo.himolde.no> | <eriki at himolde.no>
>.. student of IT administration at Molde College, Norway.
>
>
>-- To unsubscribe, send mail to: linux-parport-request@torque.net --
>-- with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. --
>
Are you 200% sure it broke starting from 2.3.43? (so that it was working
on 2.3.42?).
> I took a look at patch 43 to see what changed - it wasn't anything that
>I directly did myself,[..]
There's nothing of invasive that could hurt paride in patch-2.3.43.
But I bet the usual problem is that paride can't handle merged requests
(if that's the case it got broken while dropping the big switch from 2.3.x
make_request in 2.3.4_1_). Probably it would be safer to add a bitflag and
to enable merging only in the blockdevices that was included into the big
switch in 2.2.x (or that are been fixed in the 2.3.x cycle).
I'll have a look at paride to see if the problem is the merged request
thing...
Thanks,
Andrea
-- To unsubscribe, send mail to: linux-parport-request@torque.net --
-- with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 01 2000 - 09:53:40 EST