Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Kevin Buettner <> | | Subject | Re: Bugs in 1.3.8[8,9] and 1.3.90 | | Date | Mon, 22 Apr 1996 10:15:01 -0700 (MST) |
| |
Matthias Sattler wrote:
> Could people with scsi tapes please try the following: > > dd if=/dev/urandom of=testfile bs=1024 count=20000 > tar cvf /dev/st0 testfile > mv testfile testfile.good > tar xvf /dev/st0 > diff testfile.good testfile > > I always get different files and I want to know if its somewhere in my > hardware or in the scsi-tape support. > My setup is: > - asus PCI/I-486SP3 motherboard with ncr53c810 on board > - hp C1553A DAT tape (Rev: 9503) > - conner cfp 1060s (with patched firmware) > - both, the original linux driver and the bsd-driver port show this error > - scsi tape as module > > I doubt that the tape is defect, because (as far as I know) DATs always check > the data after it is written, so I assume that the data is already wrong > when it reaches the tape. The scsi bus seems reliable to me because the > harddisc works fine and the bsd ncrdriver uses parity (and I got no parity > errors so far). The conclusion is that there is a bug somewhere in the > linux scsi-tape code, but I'm not sure.
Tried it on 1.3.93; worked fine.
My setup: Intel P100/32MB ram, plato motherboard, ncr53c810 scsi controller, and the following scsi devices:
Attached devices: Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00 Vendor: SEAGATE Model: ST31200N Rev: 8648 Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02 Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 01 Lun: 00 Vendor: MICROP Model: 3243-19MZ Q4D Rev: HT02 Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02 Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 05 Lun: 00 Vendor: ARCHIVE Model: Python 28388-XXFrom owner-linux-kernel-outgoing@vger.rutgers.edu Tue Apr 23 08:54:36 1996 Received: from orchard.washtenaw.cc.mi.us (orchard.washtenaw.cc.mi.us [198.111.176.4]) by herbie.ucs.indiana.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA14744 for <linuxkernel@herbie.ucs.indiana.edu>; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 08:54:35 -0500 Received: from vger.rutgers.edu by orchard.washtenaw.cc.mi.us (8.6.10/2.3) with ESMTP id JAA04271; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:50:39 -0400 Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <106325-11119>; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:36:45 -0500 From: Kevin Lentin <kevinl@cs.monash.edu.au> Message-Id: <199604231149.VAA21889@fangorn.cs.monash.edu.au> Subject: Re: Must modules be GPL'ed? To: jkhp@cc.hut.fi Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 21:49:06 +1000 (EST) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu In-Reply-To: <199604222055.XAA09220@lk-hp-19.hut.fi> from "Janne Peltonen" at Apr 22, 96 11:55:42 pm Reply-To: K.Lentin@cs.monash.edu.au (Kevin Lentin) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8b] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk Janne Peltonen Wrote ... > > > It appears that modules are frequently thought to be independent > entities that are using kernel services through a well defined > interface. In that respect, modules are much similar to user mode > programs; they just happen to reside on the other side of a protection > boundary. However, it has been pointed out by someone that modules > commonly contain inlined kernel functions imported from kernel header > files.
Every program ever compiled with gcc has inlined functions from GPL'ed stuff.
> I would like to hear your opinions on the interpretation of the GPL in > this particular case. What is the spirit of the GPL? What do the > developers of Linux (Linus, are you reading?) think about commercial > object only distribution of kernel modules?
I think one of the reasons for having modules was the ability for people to supply binary modules.
-- [=======================================================================] [ Kevin Lentin |finger kevinl@fangorn.cs.monash.edu.au| ] [ K.Lentin@cs.monash.edu.au |for PGP public key block. Fingerprint | ] [ Macintrash: 'Just say NO!' |6024308DE1F84314 811B511DBA6FD596 | ] [=======================================================================]
|  |