On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:06:43 -0700 Dave Hansen <haveblue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 17:50 -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > > 0000:02:01.0 0100: 9005:00cf (rev 01) > > > 0000:02:01.1 0100: 9005:00cf (rev 01) > > > > OK strike that. The aic94xx cards all have IDs like 9005:04XX > > > > There does seem to be a cockup in the initialisation tables, but I can't > > see how it could affect what you're seeing. (PCI_DEVICE() uses the .name > > = value initialisation method and the fields following are unnamed). Do > > you build both of these into the kernel, and if so does it work when > > they're both modular? > > Yep, I build both of them in. Making them both modular will require a > wee bit more time, as the aic7xxx has my root disk on it, and I don't > have any initrds. > > In any case, I'm starting to get some funky results. I can't get the > problem to reappear in the tree where I was doing the bisect, but my > development tree where I first saw it is still broken. > > I'll do some more digging and get out a more reliable bug report. > CONFIG_PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE might be implicated, if it's enabled. - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
