From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264949AbTGKTV2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:21:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265572AbTGKTTa (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:19:30 -0400 Received: from host-64-213-145-173.atlantasolutions.com ([64.213.145.173]:9946 "EHLO havoc.gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265549AbTGKTSd (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:18:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:33:16 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik To: Dave Jones , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: 2.5 'what to expect' Message-ID: <20030711193316.GA28806@gtf.org> References: <20030711140219.GB16433@suse.de> <20030711181453.GA976@matchmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030711181453.GA976@matchmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:14:53AM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 03:02:19PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote: > > Enormous block size support. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > How about "block device size" instead? This made me think of blocks larger > than page size initially (even though I know that hasn't happened). Agreed. > > o ide_scsi is completely broken in 2.5.x. Known problem. If you need it > > either use 2.4 or fix it 8) > > Is this still true? I seem to recall testing a kernel in the 2.5.6x range, > and it worked. (haven't tested more recent kernels yet -- compiling one now > though) IIRC Alan's comment was "this fixes 99% of it" Jeff