Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 12:03:49 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: mjacob@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CAM_NEW_TRAN Message-ID: <45439B85.5010808@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20061028090155.R69020@ns1.feral.com> References: <20061027090957.V60559@ns1.feral.com> <20061027183235.GA70290@nargothrond.kdm.org> <20061027113922.M61368@ns1.feral.com> <20061027184143.GA70768@nargothrond.kdm.org> <20061028090155.R69020@ns1.feral.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
mjacob@freebsd.org wrote: > > There a number of SIMs that need changes for the CAM_NEW_TRAN code- I > can't test them all, but it's a pretty straightforward exercise to do this. > > My plan is to add all of the changes so that LINT+CAM_NEW_TRAN_CODE > compiles and otherwise test what I have h/w for and check that in. > > Once that's done, I'll send an announcement out about a cutover date in > -current to the CAM_NEW_TRAN_CODE which is going to be the only way to > actually get this in place and actually tested, and either remove the > non-CAM_NEW_TRAN_CODE or change the definition so we have > CAM_OLD_TRAN_CODE. > > Questions: > > a) If anyone wants reviews of the changes, please say so now. I'll try > and send diffs to all and sundry as I go along, but I may forget. Again, > the changes are expected relatively small > Yes, I need to consider it for locking. > b) Should I retain the old code? I would think not. I mean, this stuff > has been around for years and it just clutters up the screen for the old > stuff. No need to retain the old code. There are API changes coming for locking, anyways. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45439B85.5010808>