On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 12:48 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:53:54 -0500 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 12:19 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > > Since Linus is happily snoring by now, could you test and see if the > > > > > tree works for you? > > > > > > > > It works for me. I'll submit some minor patches against your bsg > > > > branch to scsi-ml. Can you push them together? > > > > > > Certainly, I'll pull them into the bsg branch. > > > > While you're at it, here's a patch to separate BSG and SCSI again (so > > SCSI can be built modular). The way I did it was simply to move the > > SCSI specific logic into SCSI. When you come up with a generic way to > > register the bsg requiring drivers, then we can move it out again. > > I note that block/scsi_ioctl.c is geting compiled with CONFIG_SCSI=n. > Seems odd. No, that's fine ... the reason scsi_ioctl.c moved to block was precisely so that non SCSI devices could use the ioctls, thus it should be there even if SCSI is not. > (Actually, it's failing to compile (in the middle of the bsg series) so I need > to fix it by hand somehow to continue this bisect) I generally use quilt to help with this (just quilt up the fix and apply and remove it around the bisects). I seem to get tons of trees with unrelated breakage right around where the voyager failures are. James - To unsubscribe from this list: 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
