From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 30 17:17:54 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9783C37B401; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from panzer.kdm.org (panzer.kdm.org [216.160.178.169]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A621E43FCB; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:17:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ken@panzer.kdm.org) Received: from panzer.kdm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by panzer.kdm.org (8.12.9/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h410HqPM006566; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:17:52 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from ken@panzer.kdm.org) Received: (from ken@localhost) by panzer.kdm.org (8.12.9/8.12.5/Submit) id h410HqmM006565; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:17:52 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from ken) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:17:52 -0600 From: "Kenneth D. Merry" To: Marcin Dalecki Message-ID: <20030430181752.A6544@panzer.kdm.org> References: <20030429184028.A99420@panzer.kdm.org> <3EB06714.9@gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3EB06714.9@gmx.net>; from mdcki@gmx.net on Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:15:16AM +0200 cc: current@FreeBSD.org cc: scsi@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: CAM API change, 2TB device support X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 00:17:54 -0000 On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:15:16 +0200, Marcin Dalecki wrote: > Kenneth D. Merry wrote: > > I have checked in the patches I sent out on Sunday. We now have (untested) > > support for devices larger than 2TB in CAM. > > > > There should be no effect on devices smaller than 2TB. > > > > There are some API changes that went along with this change, so you'll need > > to recompile any applications that talk to pass(4) or xpt(4). (camcontrol, > > cdrecord, xmcd, cdda2wav, etc.) > > What about aritficially bumping the corresponding port version? > At lest of the above this would be an obvious thing to do. Well, this isn't a change to the port, but rather to the OS. Also, it doesn't affect -stable, only current. Ken -- Kenneth Merry ken@kdm.org