Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Feb 2000 23:49:54 +0100 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: packet-0.0.1j & scsi |
| |
On Sun, Feb 20 2000, Gregory Zornetzer wrote: > Hi all, > > I just tried to make a patch based on packet-0.0.1j for linux-2.3.47pre7. > For the most part, things were very easy, and only a few parts had to be > manually applied (the only part that I couldn't figure out was the sparc32 > compatibility bit - looks like DaveM did a sparc merge). I think that the > patch to sr.c for 2.3.46 has a bug, though. The following bit seems wrong > in sr.c: > > @@ -322,12 +325,17 @@ > } > } > switch (SCpnt->request.cmd) { > - case WRITE: > + case WRITE_PACKET: > + printk("sr: got WRITE_PACKET\n"); > + SCpnt->cmnd[0] = WRITE_10; > + break; > + case WRITE: { > + printk("sr: got WRITE\n"); > if (!scsi_CDs[dev].device->writeable) { > return 0; > } > SCpnt->cmnd[0] = WRITE_10; > - break; > + } > case READ: > SCpnt->cmnd[0] = READ_10; > break; > > > I don't see why you need the braces after 'case WRITE:', but that's a bit > smaller than the problem of not having a 'break' at the end of 'case > WRITE:'
The reason for the braces was because I had a variable declaration in there at some point that later got removed. And the missing break is just a stupid over sight...
For sparc64 just declare the three packet ioctls compatible, ala:
COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(PACKET_SETUP_DEV);
etc.
> Comments? I haven't compiled the kernel yet, so I'll see what happens.
Thanks for informing me, I'll see if I have time to do a 2.3.47 patch before leaving (hold on to you bug reports until March 1st!).
> Thanks for working on packet-writing, Jens.
Can't let Windows have the edge on that ;)
-- * Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> * Linux CD-ROM Maintainer * http://www.kernel.dk
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |