Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:10:58 +0100 From: "tonix (Antonio Nati)" <tonix@interazioni.it> To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IDAD0 rebuilding (was: Re: camcontrol and IDAD0) Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20050920120935.056563e0@pop.ufficiopostale.it> In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20050911192854.04db7b90@pop.ufficiopostale.it> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20050901172618.0532ecb0@pop.ufficiopostale.it> <20050906084747.A84118@sasami.jurai.net> <6.2.3.4.0.20050907153854.04c36bc8@pop.ufficiopostale.it> <6.2.3.4.0.20050907163520.05554a30@pop.ufficiopostale.it> <6.2.3.4.0.20050907164953.0548c070@pop.ufficiopostale.it> <20050907133856.C84118@sasami.jurai.net> <6.2.3.4.0.20050909120032.053cc160@pop.ufficiopostale.it> <20050909135705.O84118@sasami.jurai.net> <6.2.3.4.0.20050911192854.04db7b90@pop.ufficiopostale.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 19.56 11/09/2005, you wrote: >>I'd be interested in the results of changing the definition of >>IDA_QCB_MAX from 256 to 128. >> >>See sys/dev/ida/idavar.h: >> >> #define IDA_QCB_MAX 256 > >With IDA_QCB_MAX => 128; Is this new default value (128) going to be merged into 5.x stable tree? Thanks, Tonino
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.2.3.4.0.20050920120935.056563e0>